PERSONALITY TYPE AND LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGY USE

BY UNIVERSITY STUDENTS:

WHERE THE MBTI AND SILL INTERSECT

PERSÖNLICHKEITSTYP UND SPRACHLERNSTRATEGIEN

VON UNIVERSITÄTSSTUDENTEN:

AM SCHNITTPUNKT VON MBTI UND SILL

by

Elizabeth Wendy Milne

A thesis

presented to the University of Waterloo

and the Universität Mannheim

in fulfilment of a degree of

Master of Arts

in

Intercultural German Studies

Waterloo, Ontario, Canada / Mannheim, Germany, 2020

© Elizabeth Wendy Milne 2020

ii

Author’s Declaration

I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy

of the thesis, including any required final revisions,

as accepted by my examiners.

I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public.

iii

Abstract

This thesis explores the relationship between personality type, as defined by the Myers-Briggs

Type Indicator® (“MBTI®”), and the learning strategies employed by learners enrolled in

undergraduate foreign language courses at the University of Waterloo. The R.L. Oxford©

Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (“SILL”) version 5.1, designed specifically for

speakers of English learning a new language, will be used by participants to self-assess current

learning strategies (Oxford, 1990). The quantitative portion of the study cross tabulates the data

generated from these two electronically administered surveys in an attempt to identify clusters of

personality types and learning strategies and determine if any statistically significant correlations

between personality type and student learning strategies exist. This study could not prove a

higher percentages of any particular type(s) tends to enrol in second language acquisition

courses, nor that a corresponding or any set of preferred learning strategies are used. An

exploratory research approach is taken for the qualitative portion of the study to examine the

language used by participants when answering non-prompted open-ended questions.

Specifically, keywords and common phrases from the responses are used to determine if they are

predictive of an MBTI type preference. The language the participants used to respond to the

short answer questions did not point toward any type preferences; however, a more detailed

examination with larger writing samples may be warranted to confirm this finding.

iv

Acknowledgements

First, I would like to thank both my thesis advisors: Dr. Mathias Schulze, who helped me get

started with this project, and Dr. Emma Betz, who was there to guide me to its completion. They

were both generous with their time: to meet, to discuss, to read, to encourage me when needed,

and most importantly, to challenge me academically. With their support, I was able to begin this

project and complete it.

I would also like to thank my thesis readers, Dr. Alice Kuzniar and Dr. Barbara Schmenk, for

their incredibly valuable feedback, for their insightful comments and probing questions during

the MA defence.

To the faculty, staff and my fellow graduate students of the Department of Germanic and Slavic

Studies and the IcGS Program at the University of Mannheim, thank you. You have been patient,

supportive, caring and simply amazing over the past four years. Mine was a somewhat different

journey than that of my original cohort, and through it all you were there. Thank you.

Finally, to my family and to my friends, for believing in my dreams and supporting me

throughout this process and for your love, thank you from the bottom of my heart. I could not

have done this without you.

v

Dedication

I dedicate this thesis to my husband, Weir Hugh Garvin Milne (1955-2019), who supported and

encouraged me, not only in my academic pursuits, but even more to enthusiastically and

fearlessly go after and live a good life.

Love you.

vi

Table of Contents

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. viii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ ix

List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... xi

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

2. Theoretical Frameworks .......................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Personality Psychology: Trait Theory ................................................................................................................4 2.2 Jung, Type Theory and the MBTI ....................................................................................................................11 2.3 Psychometric and Item Response Theories ......................................................................................................18 2.4 Cognitive Learning Theory ...............................................................................................................................20 2.5 Second Language Learning Theories and Strategy and Style Models ...........................................................21 2.6 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................30

3. An Overview of the SILL and the MBTI in Academic Research ....................................... 31 3.1 The SILL ............................................................................................................................................................31

3.1.1 Classroom Practice and Theoretical Models .........................................................................................31 3.1.2 Theoretical Underpinning and Model Shifts .........................................................................................34 3.1.3 Empirical Investigations of the SILL .....................................................................................................36 3.1.4 SILL use in SLA research .......................................................................................................................38

3.2 The MBTI ..........................................................................................................................................................39 3.2.1 Reliability and Validity ............................................................................................................................39 3.2.2 Type v Trait ..............................................................................................................................................44 3.2.3 Practice ......................................................................................................................................................46

4. Research Questions, Design and Data ................................................................................... 53 4.1 Hypotheses .........................................................................................................................................................54 4.2 Qualitative Data Research Questions ...............................................................................................................54 4.3 Study Design ......................................................................................................................................................55

4.3.1 Recruitment ..............................................................................................................................................56 4.3.2 Language Biography Survey ...................................................................................................................57 4.3.3 MBTI – Form M .......................................................................................................................................59 4.3.4 SILL – Version 5.1 ...................................................................................................................................60 4.3.5 Feedback Session ......................................................................................................................................61

4.4 Data ....................................................................................................................................................................62

5. Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 69 5.1 Quantitative Research .......................................................................................................................................69

5.1.1 Hypothesis 1 ..............................................................................................................................................69 5.1.2 Hypothesis 2 ..............................................................................................................................................72

5.2 Qualitative Research .........................................................................................................................................81

vii

6. Discussion and Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 90 6.1 The Instruments ................................................................................................................................................90 6.2 Hypothesis One: Conclusions and reflections for future similar studies .......................................................94 6.3 Hypothesis Two: Conclusions and reflections for future similar studies .......................................................95 6.4 Hypothesis Three: Conclusions and reflections for future similar studies ....................................................98 6.5 Applications for Classroom Use and Curricula Development ........................................................................99

7. References .............................................................................................................................. 101

8. Appendices ............................................................................................................................. 117 Appendix A – e-learning Platform Online Recruitment Letter ..............................................................................117 Appendix B – Information Letter ...........................................................................................................................118 Appendix C – Personality Type and Second Language Website Screenshots .......................................................120 Appendix D – Consent Form ..................................................................................................................................125 Appendix E – Language Biography Survey ...........................................................................................................127 Appendix F – Psychometrics Canada (MBTI) Login Page ....................................................................................130 Appendix H – MBTI Assessment Completion Notification Email ..........................................................................133 Appendix I – Online SILL Questionnaire ...............................................................................................................134 Appendix J – Sample SILL Report .........................................................................................................................137 Appendix K – Sample MBTI Report and Additional Information Handouts .........................................................139 Appendix L – Feedback Session PowerPoint Presentation Slides .........................................................................144 Appendix M – Mann-Whitney U Hypothesis Test Summaries ...............................................................................150

viii

List of Figures

a) Figure 1: Jung’s Eight Types (p. 16)

b) Figure 2: Myers-Briggs Expanded Eight Jungian Functions (p. 16)

c) Figure 3: Oxford Taxonomy of Learning Strategies (p. 27)

d) Figure 4: Characteristics of Learners by Psychological Type (p. 83)

ix

List of Tables

a) Table 4.4.1a – Participant age frequency (p. 63)

b) Table 4.4.1b – Participant age statistics (p. 63)

c) Table 4.4.2 – Participant gender (p. 63)

d) Table 4.4.3 – Participant UWaterloo term of study (p. 64)

e) Table 4.4.4 – Participant Faculty of study (p. 64)

f) Table 4.4.5 – Participant current language course (p. 65)

g) Table 4.4.6 – Participant first language(s) (p. 66)

h) Table 4.4.7 – Participant MBTI frequency (p. 66)

i) Table 4.4.8 – Participant SILL strategy statistics (p. 67)

j) Table 5.1.1 – MBTI Distribution – General Population v Sample Population (p. 70)

k) Table 5.1.2 – Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Test Statistics (p. 72)

l) Table 5.1.3a – Mann-Whitney U Hypothesis Test Summary dependent variables

strategy averages (p. 75)

m) Table 5.1.3b – Median Report (SN) for Table 5.1.3.a (p. 75)

n) Table 5.1.4a – Mann-Whitney U Hypothesis Test Summary dependent variables

strategy averages (p. 76)

o) Table 5.1.4b – Median Report (TF) for Table 5.1.4b (p. 77)

p) Table 5.1.5a – Mann-Whitney U Hypothesis Test Summary dependent variable

memory strategy statement #4 (p. 78)

q) Table 5.1.5b – Median Report (TF) for Table 5.1.5.a (p. 79)

r) Table 5.1.6a – Mann-Whitney U Hypothesis Test Summary dependent variable

cognitive strategy statement #7 (p. 80)

x

s) Table 5.1.6b – Median Report (TF) for Table 5.1.6a (p. 80)

t) Table 5.1.7 – Mann-Whitney U Hypothesis Test Summary dependent variable

metacognitive strategy statement #7 (p. 81)

u) Table 5.2.1 – Open-ended responses categorized into Sensing Type (p. 85)

v) Table 5.2.2 – Open-ended responses categorized into iNtuitive Type (p. 87)

w) Table 5.2.3 – Open-ended responses categorized into Thinking Type (p. 89)

x) Table 5.2.4 – Open-ended responses categorized into Feeling Type (p. 89)

xi

List of Abbreviations

a) FFM – Five Factor Model of Personality Traits

b) H1 – Hypothesis No. 1

c) H2 – Hypothesis No. 2

d) IRT – Item Response Theory

e) L2 – second language (or any language after first)

f) LLS – Language Learning Strategy/Strategies

g) MBTI – Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

h) PCI – Preferences Clarity Index

i) S2R – Strategic, Self-Regulation Model

j) SAT – Scholastic Aptitude Test

k) SILL – Strategic Inventory for Language Learning

l) SLA – Second Language Acquisition

m) SN – Sensing-iNtuitive (MBTI function type scale)

n) SRLL – Self-Regulated Language Learning

o) TF – Thinking-Feeling (MBTI function type scale)

p) TL – Target Language

q) UWaterloo – University of Waterloo

1

1. Introduction

Humankind seems imbued with a drive to discover, define, measure and ultimately

understand more about our physical, mental and emotional selves, our environment, and how any

one of these elements may impact on any or all of the others. Hippocrates’ (c. 460 – c. 370)

medical theory of the four humours (an excess or lack of blood, yellow bile, black bile and

phlegm) may have been the first recorded to describe and explain different human behavior, but

it was far from the last. While this particular theory has long been discarded, the drive to

discover the what and why of how we are similar and different from one another in terms of

personality continues unabated.

This study will use the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (“MBTI®”) classifications for

personality types, and was chosen as the personality research tool because it has a long history, it

is grounded in theory, and it continues to be used worldwide by over 2 million people annually

(Stein & Swan, 2019, p. 1). It has been used in studies where researchers are looking for

correlations between personality types and academic study choices: for example, Kim and Han’s

(2014) study which looked at the relationships between MBTI types, academic performance and

student satisfaction in nursing students, and the Zarafshani (2011) study which examined the

relationships between personality type and the entrepreneurial intentions of Iranian university

students completing a course in entrepreneurship.

My research is designed to use the MBTI as the tool to determine whether there is an

over- or underrepresentation of certain personality types among students who (a) enroll in the

academic study of a second/foreign language; and (b) whether certain MBTI types are more

likely to use specific learning language strategies.

Language learning strategies have become a focus of foreign language learning research

2

over the past thirty years. One of its better-known measurement tools is the Oxford© Strategy

Inventory for Language Learning (“SILL”) developed by Rebecca Oxford in 1989. This research

used SILL Version 5.1 which was specifically designed for speakers of English learning a new

language to self-assess their current learning strategies.

My research will analyze the quantitative data and gathered from the completion of these

two surveys, looking for correlations, patterns, trends and other statistically relevant information

to prove the assumptions regarding the participant distribution of personality types and the

strategies used as second language learners. The results from this study will be compared to other

similarly conducted research to determine if previous results are replicated or refuted.

What sets this study apart from previous ones will be the inclusion of a survey which

includes three open-ended questions. Using analytic induction, data from this qualitative survey

will be analyzed by looking for keywords within the answers provided to see if they point to an

MBTI personality type or preferred language learning skill.

If the research in this study finds statistical evidence for a skewed distribution of

personality types relative to the general population engaging in university second language

courses and a correlation between personality type and language learning strategies employed by

the study participants, the information may be used to develop methods of future curricula

delivery and inform lesson plan construction to facilitate language acquisition strategies. The use

of keyword predictors for personality type or language learning strategies may provide

instructors with information which will allow them to modify classroom practices to provide

learning tasks which focus on student strengths and provide tasks to develop other learning

skills.

The five main theoretical frameworks – trait, type, psychometric, cognitive learning and

3

second language learning theories – which were used to design the research study will be

described in the following chapter of the thesis. In Chapter 3, I review the literature with respect

to second language acquisition research which utilizes language learning strategies, in particular

the SILL, followed by a survey of personality research which uses the MBTI. This chapter

concludes with a review of literature from previously conducted research which has used both

the SILL and the MBTI.

Following the literature review, detailed information regarding the research questions, the

research design, methodology, and data introducing the population is provided in Chapter 4. The

results of statistical analyses which used the SILL and the MBTI to test the hypotheses, and the

keyword analysis of the qualitative data will be presented in Chapter 5.

The final chapter, Discussion and Conclusion, will focus on evaluating the significance

of the study results, placing it into context with current research, and suggesting how it may be

used in classroom practice and curricula development. Shortcomings of this study will be

examined, and where possible, modifications proposed for future similar studies. Additional

research questions which arise from the study design or results will be included in this chapter.

4

2. Theoretical Frameworks

The primary objective of this research is to advance second language acquisition

instruction by searching for any discernable correlations between the personality of adult learners

and the language learning strategies they use. The research draws on several theoretical

frameworks which will be reviewed in this section. In all instances, I will provide an overview of

the theories which build the basis for the research design, the hypothesis, the analysis and

conclusions; however, not all theories for this study carry the same weight during the analysis

and some subsections – 2.1 Personality Psychology: Trait Theory, 2.3 Psychometric and Item

Response Theories, and 2.4 Cognitive Learning Theory – will only provide a simple and

straightforward description of the theory for the purpose of providing background information

and establishing a common vocabulary for writer and readers.

Subsections 2.2, Jung, Type Theory, and the MBTI, and 2.5 Second Language Learning

Theories and Strategy and Style Models, are the most relevant theoretical schema for this

investigation. To reflect their bearing on the research, these subsections are accordingly

amplified in their content.

2.1 Personality Psychology: Trait Theory

Personality looks at the very complex yet personal issues of individual differences

between people, including preferences, motives and predispositions, and has been the subject of

informal conversation, formal research, conjecture and debate for many years. The study of

personality is one of the main themes in psychology, and the subdiscipline specializing in this

area known as personality psychology. There are differing theories, methodologies and models

on personality psychology, including but not limited to, the psychoanalytic, behaviorist, trait and

interactionist perspectives (Lundgren et al., 2017, p. 199). Within one perspective there may be

5

differing approaches; for example, the expression of traits may be analyzed through a biological,

cognitive, social or health psychology lens. These different approaches have not made it easier to

reach a consensus about what personality actually is, its function, or even how it manifests itself.

Personality has been described as the complex amalgam of an individual’s unique

behavioral, temperamental, emotional and mental attributes. This fusion of characteristics and

functions may be conceptualized as the entire mental organization of a person’s circumstances

and their physically stable set of individual attributes (Kaushal & Patwardhan, 2018, p. 3). The

2020 Encyclopædia Britannica adds to this definition by referencing how personality may

express itself:

Personality embraces moods, attitudes, and opinions and is most clearly expressed in

interactions with other people. It includes behavioral characteristics, both inherent and

acquired, that distinguish one person from another and that can be observed in people’s

relations to the environment and to the social group. (Holzman, 2020)

Both definitions of personality are based upon the assumption that personality traits are pre-

eminently distinguishable and distinguishing features of personality, yet neither explicitly

defines or enumerates these traits.

In his 1994 work Hofstee notes that traits may be defined in either an enumerative or

abstract manner. He highlights the lexical approach as the foremost example of an enumerative

approach to personality trait research. To provide an historical perspective to the argument, he

refers to Rümelin‘s 1881 Tübingen Akademische Rede: „ …wir dürfen wohl mit Recht davon

ausgehen, dass das die einfachsten, der Beobachtung zuerst und am häufigsten sich

ausdrängenden Begriffe sind, welche die Sprache durch ein besonders Wort auszuzeichnen ein

6

Bedürfnis empfindet1“ (Rümelin, 1890, p. 397, as quoted in Hofstee, p. 151). Every language

contains a plethora of adjectives which identifies or describes a consistent pattern of behaviour

societal members may manifest – words such as honest, grumpy, brave, lazy or sociable (ehrlich,

mürrig, mutig, faul, oder gesellig). As Rümelin noted more than one hundred years ago, these

widely agreed upon adjectives seem to describe individual styles of thought, feeling, and

behaviour. These attributes may be considered traits when they are displayed with some

consistency over time (Matthews, 2018, p. 69). Personality theories, in particular trait theory,

attempts to identify these traits and organize them into broad personality dimensions (Dörnyei,

2005, p. 11).

Early and influential twentieth century personality researchers such as Gordon Allport,

Raymond Cattell and Hans Eysenck, considered by Boyle, Matthews and Saklofske (2008) to be

the three founding fathers of trait psychology, each worked from the assumption that traits

indicate behavioral tendencies. The debate over the past sixty-plus years, has been to determine

exactly what constitutes a trait: Is a trait latent or should it be considered source or surface?

Where and in what type of hierarchy should it be placed? And what is its relationship to

motivation, ability and mood? The core principles of contemporary trait theory are that traits

display stable quantitative dimensions, are based in genetics, have a generality of expression, and

are interactive. In addition, traits are consistently exhibited and serve the individual’s adaptive

and expressive goals (Boyle et al., 2008).

Gordon Allport defined a trait – or using his preferred term, personal disposition – as a

“generalized neuropsychic (particular to the individual) with the capacity to render many stimuli

functionally equivalent, and to initiate and guide consistent (equivalent) forms of adaptive and

1 English Translation: “... we can rightly assume that these are the simplest, most observed and most common concepts, which language perceives the need to distinguish by a particular word.”

7

stylistic behaviour” (Allport, 1937, p. 373). Expressed differently, a trait describes the filtering of

experience through the self to impose a personal structure on the world (Boyle et al., 2008, p. 2).

Allport’s seminal work Pattern and Growth in Personality (1961) advanced his theory of

personality as “psychological processes that determine a person’s characteristic behaviour and

thought” (Lundgren et al., 2017, p. 199). Allport was an American scientist, and when taking this

lexical approach to gather and create his list of some 4500 named traits, he used American

English words2. Allport grouped his list of traits into a three-tiered hierarchy:

1. Cardinal traits: Those traits which shape an individual’s identity, emotion, attitude

and long-term behaviour. They are rare and tend to develop over the years.

2. Central traits: Those traits which are present to varying degrees in all people, not as

overwhelming as cardinal traits, but the basic building blocks that shape or influence

yet do not determine behaviour. They are the main characteristics that describe

another person.

3. Secondary traits: Those traits that are also present in all individuals, and while they

can influence behaviour, are strongly dependent on immediate context. These private

traits are particular to each individual and often only revealed under certain

circumstances. These traits are less generalized and relevant yet must be included to

provide a complete picture of human complexity.

Raymond Cattell’s theory of personality streamlined Allport’s list of traits to a more

manageable sixteen primary factors that he posited every individual possesses to some extent:

2 While the scope of this research does not include an analysis of personality trait, type or language learning strategy semantics, it is important to note and keep in mind that throughout this thesis, unless noted otherwise, I am using English labels for these phenomena. As Wierzbicka (1997) notes: “There is a very close link between the life of a society and the lexicon of the language spoken by it. This applies in equal measure to the outer and inner aspects of life” (p. 1). I would anticipate that similar research undertaken in another language would yield broadly similar results with nuanced, relevant and unique differences specific to that language, society and culture.

8

warmth, reasoning, emotional stability, dominance, liveliness, rule-consciousness, social-

boldness, sensitivity, vigilance, abstractedness, privateness, apprehension, openness to change,

self-reliance, perfectionism, and tension. Someone can be in the low or high range of these

factors, and there are a number of attributes which can be ascribed to the primary factors.

Core to Cattell’s work was psychometrics, the field of study focused on measurement of

psychological qualities such as traits. (More detail on psychometrics is provided in subsection

2.3 of this chapter.) Cattell used factor analysis, a key component of psychometric theory, to

identify those sixteen primary personality factors. His formulation of trait models four attributes:

1. source traits, a latent construct with causal force, which should be distinguishable

from superficial regularities in behaviour also known as surface traits;

2. personality models should be hierarchical;

3. the personality sphere should be differentiated from other domains of individual

differences such as ability, motivation and transient mood states; and,

4. the influence of traits on behaviour is moderated by situational factors. (Boyle et al.,

2008, p. 2)

Hans Eysenck3 proposed a theory of personality based on biological factors, arguing that

individuals inherit a type of nervous system that affects their ability to learn and adapt to the

environment. His initial work, also using factor analysis, led him to theorize that behaviour could

be represented by two dimensions which lie on a continuum: introversion/extroversion and

neuroticism/stability. He would later add a third dimension, psychoticism/normality. Eysenck’s

3 Before turning to personality research, Eysenck’s work focused on intelligence research. He hypothesized that general intelligence (g) is underlain by speed. He created a three-dimensional model comprised of content (verbal, numerical, and spatial), mental processes (reasoning, memory, and perception) and quality (referencing the nature of the test administration) – a model which has not withstood the test of time (Boyle et al., 2016). As with his theory of personality, he argued “the biological underpinnings of intelligence depend on genetic potential expressed through developmental and neurochemical pathways” (Eysenck, 1982 and 1998 as quoted in Boyle et al, 2016, p. 42).

9

theory takes into account both nature (e.g., the excitation and inhibition processes of the

autonomic nervous system) and nurture (the conditioning and socialization during childhood) in

the development of personality (McLeod, 2017).

Using factor-analytic structures, mid-twentieth personality researchers proposed different

psychometrically based trait theories with as few as two to as many as sixteen dimensions

depending on which traits were considered the major superfactors and which psychological

systems were considered key causal agents. (Cervone & Caprara, 2001; Matthews, 2018).

By the 1980s and 1990s, researchers arrived at a consensus on the number and nature of

the factors to use to assess individual personality differences. Consensus centered on a five-

dimensional trait taxonomy known as the Big Five Model or Five Factor Model “FFM” of

personality which has since emerged as a standard way of modeling personalities. The five

higher-order dimensions of personality traits measured are extraversion or energy, neuroticism or

emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experiences.

Components of extraversion include high activity, sociability, assertiveness, talkativeness

and a tendency to experience positive emotions. Neuroticism is the extent to which individuals

experience and display negative affects like anxiety, embarrassment, anger, depression, or guilt,

and reflects a person’s tendency to experience psychological distress. Agreeableness refers to

friendly, considerate, and modest behaviour reflecting a tendency to be trusting, sympathetic and

cooperative. Conscientiousness is associated with persistence, dependability, responsibility, self-

discipline and a high will to achieve. Openness to experience represents the willingness for an

individual to involve themselves in intellectual activities, new experiences, or artistic pursuits

through curiosity and imagination (Furnham et al., 2003; Kaushal & Patwardhan, 2018).

10

These constructs are measured on a continuous scale that ranges between the two

extremes of one particular dimension. Scores measure the degree or magnitude of the personality

construct; for example, openness to experience, with a high score showing a greater degree of the

attributes used to define openness to experience, and a lower score showing a subsequent lack of

the attributes used to describe openness. The majority of scores tend to cluster near a common

point along the scale, showing fewer scores at the extremes, and thus forming a unimodal and

relatively symmetrical distribution. The FFM did not derive from any single theory of

personality, but has received much empirical support to become one of the most widely used

tests in personality research (Cervone & Caprara, 2001; Furnham et al., 2003; Pittenger, 2005).

Other fields of personality psychology research include those researched through the lens

of complex system theories, such as psychodynamic theory, which describes the system’s parts

and their conflicts, or social cognitive theory which describes the system’s information

processing of the social world. Trait theory finds a place within complex system theory since it

studies the system’s dimensions of preferred activity (Mayer, 1998, p. 122). The cognitive-

adaptive theory of personality starts from the premise that trait variation reflects different

strategies for adapting to environmental opportunities and pressures (Matthews, 2008).

Trait theories of personality, as stand alone theories or factors within other theoretical

models, represent a significant component of personality research. They have been explained in

greater detail here because traits and trait theory are often confused with type theories of

personality which are described more fully in the following section. Simply put, trait theories

propose that a personality is composed of a number of measurable attributes which lie on a

continuum (an individual has “x” amount of extraversion), while type theory emphasizes the

significance of a distinct personality which can be discretely categorized (an individual is an

11

extravert). As traits are measured on a continuum, the majority of trait scores will tend to be

normally distributed within the population. Cultural values may attribute a higher or lower score

on a particular scale as being more desirable (e.g., agreeableness). Type theory characterizes

people according to certain qualitatively distinctive categories without assigning value.

Assessing type results as traits may lead to an incorrect attribution of a skill or can lead to an

over- or undervaluation of an attribute (Quenk, 1993). The inappropriate use of type assessment

instruments may lead an individual to make inferences about skill sets, relationship suitability,

possible job satisfaction or behavioural choices which type theory does not support.

2.2 Jung, Type Theory and the MBTI

„Es gab zwar immer Psychologie, solange die geschichtliche Welt besteht, aber eine

objektive Psychologie gibt es erst seit kurzem4“ (Jung, 1921b, p. 17).

Despite Jung’s assertion of an objective psychology, the resultant work in the field of

psychology during the early twentieth century would, from this vantage point in time, not include

the descriptive “objective.” There was no agreed upon general definition or definitive theory

about psychology, and personality research was muddied even further by the competitiveness of

the early theorists like Freud, Jung, and Adler, who each claimed superiority over the other’s

theory. This attitude hindered the development of an overall integrated, agreed-upon framework

in which to organize subsequent research (Mayer, 1998, pp. 118-9).

Freud and Jung would work together extensively following their initial correspondence in

1906, and for the next six years collaborated before going their separate ways in 1913.

Subsequent to their parting, Jung founded his own “analytic” psychology and psychotherapy

which differed substantially from Freud’s teachings (Boerner, 2015, p. 28). One of the points of

4 English translation: “For all of recorded history, there has always been psychology, but only recently an objective psychology.”

12

contention was the interpretation each assigned to the role of libido in the development of the

person. Unlike Freud, Jung did not restrict libido to the sex drive but also understood it as a

“psychic energy” which he described as „die Intensität des psychischen Vorganges, sein

psychologischer Wert5.“ He went on to explain his use of the term libido thusly: „Die Frage, ob

es eine spezifische, psychische Kraft gibt oder nicht, hat mit dem Begriff der L. nichts zu tun. Ich

gebrauche den Ausdruck L. öfters promiscuë mit ,Energie‘6” (Jung, 1921b, p. 645). In his theory

of type, Jung would use the term libido as a synonym for psychic energy.

Theories and studies in personality concern themselves with the traits, moods, and

characteristics human beings share and the points at which they differ between individuals. Jung,

who described his work as „ … eine deductive Darstellung empirisch gewonnener Einsichten7“

(Jung, 1921b, p. 9), assumed that people share the same basic psychological equipment of

perception and an ability to respond to perceived stimulus, but where people differ is in how they

use that psychological equipment (Blutner & Hochnadel, 2010, p. 245).

Jung conceptualized three dichotomous dimensions to personality: Extraversion-

Introversion, Sensing-iNtuition, and Thinking-Feeling. The first dimension pair he labeled

attitude-types, the latter two as function-types (Jung, 1921a, p. 337). Each preference in a pair is

constructed according its own unique measure, separate and distinct from the content of the

preference on the opposite pole. Therefore, unlike the measurement systems found in many trait

theories, opposite preferences in Jungian type theory are not described as a lack or a deficit of the

opposite preference (Myers et al., 1998, p. 5).

5 English translation: “The intensity of the psychological process; its psychological value.” 6 English translation: “The question of whether there is a specific psychological force or not has nothing to do with the concept of libido. I often use the expression libido interchangeably with ‘energy’.” 7 English translation: “… the result of a deductive presentation of empirically gained insights.”

13

Jung defined attitude as “a readiness of the psyche to act or react in a certain way …

having an attitude is synonymous with an a priori orientation to a definite thing” (Jung, 1921a, p.

414). On the attitude-type dichotomy Extraversion-Introversion, Extraversion is an outward-

turning of libido, “a positive movement of subjective interest towards the object” (Jung, 1921a,

p. 427); introversion is the inward-turning of libido, “a negative relation of subject to object …

the subject is the prime motivating factor and that the object is of secondary importance” (Jung,

1921a, p. 452).

Jung’s work on the Extraversion-Introversion dimension can be found in numerous other

theories, like Hans Eysenck’s and the Five Factor Model described more fully in Section 2.1

Personality Psychology: Trait Theory of this thesis. It is worth nothing that some theories ascribe

different names to the attributes of extraversion and introversion such as ‘sociability’ or

‘surgency.’ The words themselves are often misunderstood as referring to behaviours that may

be seen or described as gregariousness or shyness. While there is frequently a correlation

between these behaviours and types, it is important to remember that the behaviour description is

not the meaning being ascribed to extraverts or introverts within type theory or this thesis. For

type theory, extraversion-introversion is thought of in terms of psychic energy. Extroverts tend to

prefer the external world of things, events, people and activities. They are energized by being out

in the world. Introverts prefer the internal world of their own thoughts, feelings, fantasies and

dreams, and become energized by withdrawing into their inner world and being quietly reflexive

(Blutner & Hochnadel, 2010, p. 245).

Jung noted that grouping people into only these two types did not provide a complete

picture of what he observed:

“What struck me now was the undeniable fact while people may be classed as introverts

14

or extraverts, this does not account for the tremendous differences between individuals in

either class. So great, indeed, are these differences that I was forced to doubt whether I

had observed correctly in the first place. It took nearly ten years of observation and

comparison to clear up this doubt.” (Jung, 1921a, p. 521)

Jung’s ten years of observation led to his theorizing the existence of four functions,

where a function is “a particular form of psychic activity that remains the same in principle under

varying conditions” (Jung, 1921a, p. 436).

Ich unterscheide vier Funktionen, nämlich Empfindung, Denken, Gefühl und Intuition.

Der Empfindungsvorgang stellt im wesentlichen fest, dass etwas ist, das Denken, was es

bedeutet, das Gefühl, was es wert ist, und Intuition ist vermuten und Ahnen über das

Woher und das Wohin8. (Jung, 1936, p. 270 as quoted in Blutner & Hochnadel, 2010, p.

245)

According to Jung we all have these psychological functions or processes; we just have

them in different proportions. The four functions direct conscious mental activity/energy toward

a different goal. Each person will also have a function they draw on most often and with the

greatest confidence. This function is labelled as the superior or dominant function. It has the

largest share of the available psychic energy under its control, with each of the other functions in

their hierarchy (auxiliary, tertiary and inferior functions) having proportionately less energy

available that the individual can control and direct (Blutner & Hochnadel, 2010; Myers et al.,

1998).

8 English translation as per Blutner (2010): “I distinguish four functions, namely sensation, thinking, feeling, and intuition. Sensation tells us that something exists; thinking tells us what it is; feeling tells us what its significance is for us; and intuition tells us where it comes from and where it is going.”

15

Jung identifies the Sensing-iNtuition as perceiving functions which are the two processes

by which we gather information. A perceiving function is concerned with the direct receiving of

information without filter or evaluation. He identified this pair of functions as irrational by

which he meant that they attend to the flow of events and operate principally and most broadly

without constraint by rational direction. Sensing refers to perceptions observable by way of the

senses. Individuals oriented toward Sensing tend to focus on the immediate experiences available

to their five senses. Intuition involves discovering possibilities which might not be immediately

obvious from sensory data. Individuals oriented toward Intuition tend to focus on possibility,

patterns and the abstract (Furnham et al., 2003; Myers et al., 1998).

The judging functions, Thinking-Feeling, describe the manner in which we come to

conclusions about what we perceive. Jung identified these as the rational functions because they

are personally directed. Thinking and Feeling judgements act as constraints or limit the free flow

of the sensations or intuitions received by the two irrational perceiving functions. Thinking

involves the logical analysis of information in terms of the strict principles of cause and effect. It

tends to be objective and impersonal in the application of reason to a decision, relying on

impartiality and neutrality. Feeling involves identifying the emotional value that is attached to

objects, events or people. Decisions are weighed on the relative values and merits of the issues. It

is a more subjective decision making process than thinking (Furnham et al., 2003; Myers et al.,

1998).

The addition of the four function types to the initial two attitude types led to Jung’s

specification of the following eight types in Psychological Types (1921/1971).

16

Attitudes with Dominant Irrational (Perceiving) Functions

Attitudes with Dominant Rational (Judging) Functions

• Extraverts with dominant sensing

• Introverts with dominant sensing

• Extraverts with dominant intuition

• Introverts with dominant intuition

• Extraverts with dominant thinking

• Introverts with dominant thinking

• Extraverts with dominant feeling

• Introverts with dominant thinking

Myers et al. (1998), provides the following, expanded table as a synopsis to demonstrate

how the function types (sensing-intuition and thinking-feeling) are expressed through the two

attitude types (extraversion-introversion).

Further to this dominant function, every type has an “auxiliary function which is in every

respect different from the nature of the primary function” (Jung, 1921a, p. 406). According to

Taken from MBTI® Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® Instrument, Third Edition, Myers et al., 1998, p. 23

Figure 1

Figure 2

Jung’s Eight Types

Myers-Briggs Expanded Eight Jungian Functions

17

Jung, if the superior function is rational, the secondary function must be irrational and vice versa.

The eight basic types can be further refined into sixteen psychological types depending on what

is considered the secondary function (Blutner & Hochnadel, 2010, p. 246-247). The Myers-

Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI), developed by Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter, Isabel

Briggs Myers, is likely the best known system that makes use of the sixteen types.

Katharine Briggs observed that some people habitually use the rational or judgment

functions in their interactions with the world. Others habitually interact with the outer world

using the perceiving or irrational functions. Her work, in conjunction with Jung’s implied but

incomplete discussion of this area, formed the basis for the final dichotomous pair used by the

MBTI: Judging-Perceiving (Myers et al., 1998, p. 26). Judging and perceiving are the two

processes by which we act upon information we have gathered; perceiving is concerned with

directly receiving information without evaluation and judging is concerned with organizing and

processing information (Furnham et al., 2003, p. 578). The Judging-Perceiving dichotomy

describes the orientation to the outer or extraverted world for every type. In the Judging attitude,

a person is concerned with making decisions, seeking closure, planning operations, or organizing

activies. In the Perceiving attitude, a person is attuned to incoming information with an aim to

keep receiving information as long as possible (Myers et al., 1998, p. 26-27).

The four dichotomous poles of the MBTI allow it to be grouped into sixteen four letters

types where the first letter indicates the preference for the extraverted (E) or introverted (I)

attitude of energy; the second letter indicates the preference for sensing (S) or intuitive (N)

perception; the third letter indicates the preference for thinking (T) or feeling (F) judgment; and,

the fourth letter indicates a preference for a judging (J) or perceiving (P) attitude toward the

outer, extraverted world (Myers et al., 1998, p. 30).

18

Type is a qualitative characterization of a person, whereas trait, explained earlier in

Subsection 2.1 of this chapter, is more of a quantitative representation of a behavioral tendency.

For example, within type theory, introverts and extraverts are grouped into one of two distinctly

different categories of people. According to trait theories however, introversion and extraversion

are part of a continuous dimension, with many people clustered in the middle. “Type is discrete,

while trait is continuous” (Kaushal & Patwardhan, 2018, p. 5).

According to Myers (1988), Jung’s type theory may be further differentiated from trait

theories in that it suggests the why of behaviour may be found in the different ways individuals

prefer to gather information and make decisions. “Perception involves all the ways of becoming

aware of things, people, happenings, or ideas. Judgement involves all the ways of coming to

conclusions about what has been perceived. If people differ systematically in what they perceive

and in how they reach conclusions, then it is only reasonable for them to differ correspondingly

in their interests, reactions, values, motivations, and skills” (p. 3).

Theories provide principles and a perspective from which to investigate and explain

observable phenomena. They may define complex situations, circumstances or phenomena and

then set limits on how supporting data is gathered, used or judged. Statistical evaluation of data,

regardless of theory, gives researchers a basic and common means of measuring results within

and between studies.

2.3 Psychometric and Item Response Theories

A quantitative approach to research involves gathering data, constructing models from

the information collected so that researchers and readers can explore the data in new and relevant

ways, and discovering patterns and making insights which may not be seen by simply looking at

raw data (Tolmie et al., 2011, p. 4). One goal of quantitative analysis and research is to take the

19

subjective and transform it into objective, measurable data.

To standardize and measure personality differences, personality psychology began

quantifying individual traits such as preferences, motives and predispositions. This move to

develop a quantitative rational science through the use of psychological measurements was given

the name psychometrics (Jones & Thissen, 2007, p. 1). “Psychometrics is the branch of

psychology that deals with the design, administration, and interpretation of quantitative tests or

instruments for the measurement of psychological variables such as intelligence, attitudes and

personality traits” (Krabbe, 2017a, p. 106).

To collect psychological data, instruments such as self-report questionnaires or subjective

reports are created to sample the aspect of the individual’s psyche the researcher wishes to study

(e.g., skill, ability, personality trait or personality type). Psychometrics provides a quantitative

basis for understanding the network of relationships between the various measured instrument

constructs (Boyle et al., 2008, p. 9).

Item Response Theory (IRT) was first proposed in the field of psychometrics for

purposes of ability assessment. It is not really a theory but a collection of measurement models

which examine how item responses in an instrument are related to the underlying construct in the

individual (latent trait) that is presumed to produce those responses. It is used to calibrate and

evaluate items in tests, assessment instruments and questionnaires, with its most common

application in designing tests in traditional “ability-based” domains (e.g., achievement,

intelligence, aptitude). For example, it is used for such major education tests as the scholastic

20

aptitude test (SAT)9. IRT can be calculated for a single item or for the whole test (An & Yung,

2014; Krabbe, 2017; Myers et al., 1998).

At its most fundamental level, a psychometric measurement system takes a subjective

quality from a set of people and maps it onto a system of numbers so that the structural

characteristics of numbers may be used to reflect or represent analogous characteristics of people

(Ramsay, 2001, p. 12417). This objective representation of subjective data may then be analyzed

through various statistical measures.

This thesis will use the subjective data gathered through a questionnaire which asks

participants to report on strategies they use to learn a second language. Learning may take place

through direct or indirect methods, from accessing visual or auditory information, through social

interaction, reflection, or repetition of physical or mental tasks. This study will use the

questionnaire results which relate specifically to mental processing, i.e., cognitive elements of

learning used by the participants.

2.4 Cognitive Learning Theory

Cognition refers to thinking and includes all conscious and unconscious mental systems

an individual uses to accumulate (perceive) and process (judge) knowledge including

interpreting sensory input, memory, reasoning, decision making and language learning. It is a

mental state of knowing which is distinguishable from an emotional experience (“Cognition,”

2017)10.

9 The University of California has recently suspended testing requirements for the next two years and will omit test scores from in-state applications in 2023 and 2024. The university will study whether to adopt a new admission test by 2025 (Anderson, 2020). 10 This is a contested assertion, as recent research “indicates that emotions involve all functions studied in relation to cognition, namely, attention, perception, learning, reasoning, memory, and so on” (Sun & Mathews, 2012, p. 109). However, as Oxford sorts language learning strategies into six strategies which includes specifically “affective strategies,” this thesis will work with an assumption of a more definitive distinction between the “mental state of knowing” and the “emotional experience.”

21

Cognitive learning is about using thinking to learn. Thus, cognitive learning theories

focus on learning which occurs in the mental and psychological processes of the mind; that is,

how knowledge is acquired, constructed, processed, represented, subsequently remembered, and

used. It is not concerned with behaviour (Taylor & Hamdy, 2013; Kay & Kibble, 2016).

Cognitive skills permit a more abstract, rule-oriented approach to learning (McLaughlin, 1978, p.

138).

Cognitive Learning theory maintains that skills become automatic or routinized only after

analytical processes; that is, subsequent to a constant and continuing restructuring and

integration of knowledge through various repeated phases. Learners are active agents in the

learning process, and each learner comes to the learning experience with different levels of prior

knowledge, skills, and motivation that influence learning outcomes. As the learner develops

increasing degrees of mastery, s/he engages in a constant process of restructuring to combine

new structures with those previously learned. Cognitive learning challenges a previous schema

which is then readjusted to fit the new information (Kay & Kibble, 2016; Schulz, 1991; Van

Vuuren et al., 2019).

Within cognitive learning theory, language production is regarded as the active operation

and practice of constructing and expressing meaning (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990, p. 37).

2.5 Second Language Learning Theories and Strategy and Style Models

Second language acquisition (SLA) refers to the learning or acquisition of a new or

additional language. Some researchers break the study of a non-native language into two distinct

categories: “second language,” which are the languages to which a learner has access within their

broader culture (e.g., learning English in Quebec), and “foreign language,” that is a language not

used as an official medium within a given country (e.g., English in Paraguay). The term SLA is

22

often used to connote both language learning, defined as the conscious knowledge and

instruction of language rules, and language acquisition, which occurs in a more spontaneous

manner and on a more subconscious level. SLA may be used to signify any language acquired

after the first language, whether it is the second or any additional language (Oxford, 1990, p. 4;

Miao, 2015, p. 360). Within this thesis, the term L2 (second language) learning is used in

reference to any additional language being learned after the first language or languages, whether

it is a second or foreign language; and the term TL (target language) refers to the language being

learned.

The field of SLA is constantly evolving. In her article, Kramsch (2000) highlights the

ambiguities around the term “SLA” by reviewing definitions provided by three separate US

university SLA programs. The answers range from SLA as “an internally driven, individual

phenomenon that is largely independent of the context in which it takes place” to research that

“focuses, in addition, on the nature of the learning environments – schools, classrooms, and

curricula” to the third which distinguishes SLA research from L2 teaching methodology and first

language acquisition research” (p. 314). SLA research today is conducted in areas as diverse as

how language learners develop grammatical and pragmatic competencies, how they learn to

speak and read languages in natural and instructional settings, and how learners change as they

acquire an additional language (Celik, 2015, p. 112). In Research Methods in Second Language

Acquisition (2012), Mackey & Gass have assembled articles on the range of SLA data currently

being collected and studied including learner corpora, formal theory-based methodologies,

instructed second language acquisition, the design and analysis of survey research, and the

collection and analysis of qualitative date. SLA is an interdisciplinary study which may draw

upon and in turn inform studies and theories in fields such as linguistics, psychology,

23

psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, conversational analysis and education

(Gass, 1993, p. 102).

Oxford’s Language and Learning Strategies (1990) text reflects the SLA field of the day.

It was then a relatively new field in which the theories attempted to explain “well-attested

empirical findings about relationships between process and production in interlanguage

development11 and universals, and variance in learners and learning environments” (Long, 1990,

p. 649). Oxford (1990) posited that LLS contribute to all aspects of the language learning-

language acquisition continuum (wherein learning is the conscious knowledge derived from

formal instruction and acquisition refers to a learner’s unconscious and spontaneous

development of language) in particular through focusing on the processes by which learning

occurs (pp. 4-5). The LLS instrument Oxford developed, and which is described in detail further

on in this chapter, was based on this narrower conception of language learning.

Henning Wode (1988) identified five general categories into which language acquisition

theories can be assigned: “1) those attempting a behavioristic explanation, emphasizing the role

of conditioning; 2) those attempting an interactionist explanation, emphasizing

communicative/social need, purpose, and setting; 3) those attempting a cognitive explanation,

emphasizing logical, intellectual processes; 4) those attempting a nativist or biological

explanation, emphasizing inborn, genetic abilities; and 5) those emphasizing the learner and

learning strategies” (Schulz, 1991, p. 18). This thesis will be concerning itself primarily with

categories 3 and 5 of Wode’s list: cognitive learning and learning strategies.

11 These SLA assumptions have since been attacked. For further information, see for example the articles which make up the “Firth and Wagner Debate:” Firth and Wagner (1997, 1998), Hall (1997), Kasper (1997), Liddicoat (1997), Long (1997), Poulisse (1997), Rampton (1997), and Gass (1998).

24

Within cognitive theory, learning strategies are those complex cognitive skills that follow

the same general rules as other forms of procedural knowledge. Procedural knowledge has the

capacity to transform declarative knowledge so that it is reorganized, summarized, or represented

and linked to new information in memory (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990, p. 216).

The cognitive theory of language learning thus considers the mental processes which,

through systemic practice of various skills such as focusing on selected aspects of new

information, analyzing and monitoring information during acquisition, organizing or elaborating

on new information during the coding process or evaluating the learning when it is completed,

lead to the mechanical integration and “natural” use of linguistic patterns. A cyclical

development of language is posited within this theory. As the learner develops mastery of a task,

s/he is continuing to integrate new information onto the existing structure of knowledge,

permitting continuing refinement and closer approximation to the TL (O’Malley & Chamot,

1990, p. 37; Schulz, 1991, p. 18).

The term strategy implies conscious movement toward a goal in which learners take steps

to manage their learning to achieve those goals (Hsiao & Oxford, 2002, p. 369). “While folk

wisdom tells us that practice makes perfect, it may not be the quantity of practice but the kind of

practice that enhances acquisition” (Schulz, 1991, p. 23). The kind of practice a student might

choose to use in an effort to enhance their language acquisition may be considered a language

learning strategy (LLS).

LLS became a significant aspect of SLA studies in the mid-1970s and marked a shift in

researchers’ interest away from the teacher and teaching methods towards the learner and

learning behaviours. LLS are developed and modeled on the idea that a number of the

25

differences in learner success rates can be attributed to the various strategic approaches they

bring to the table. (Dmitrenko, 2017, p. 7; Griffiths & Parr, 2001, p. 249).

At its simplest, an LLS is a strategy related to learning or using the language being

learned. Oxford defined LLS as “specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier,

faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferrable to new

situations” (Oxford, 1990a, p. 8). While other similar yet distinct definitions of LLS exist, this

thesis will be working with Oxford’s definition. The common features found within LLS are

summarized by Oxford as:

1. Contribute to the main goal, communicative competence.

2. Allow learners to become more self-directed.

3. Expand the role of teachers.

4. Are problem-oriented.

5. Are specific actions taken by the learner.

6. Involve many aspects of the learner, not just the cognitive.

7. Support learning both directly and indirectly.

8. Are not always observable.

9. Are often conscious.

10. Can be taught.

11. Are flexible.

12. Are influenced by a variety of factors (Oxford, 1990, p. 9).

Oxford divided LLS into two major classes: direct and indirect. The direct strategies,

those which require mental processing of the TL include memory, cognitive and compensation

strategies. The indirect strategies, which support and manage language learning without directly

26

involving the TL are metacognitive, affective and social strategies. Each strategy group, whether

direct or indirect, supports each of the others (Oxford, 1990).

Memory strategies help learners link one TL item or concept with another while

cognitive strategies enable the learner to manipulate the language material in direct ways, e.g.,

through reasoning, note-taking, and synthesizing. Compensation strategies help make up for

missing knowledge.

Of the indirect strategies, metacognitive strategies are used to manage the learning

process overall; affective strategies help learners manage their emotions and motivation level;

and, social strategies enable the learner to learn via interaction with others and understand the

target culture. A learning strategy is in itself neither good nor bad, rather it is neutral until placed

within a student’s learning context. Where the strategy relates well to the TL task at hand, where

it fits the student’s learning style preferences, is used effectively, and is linked with other

strategies, it may be considered useful or “good” (Ehrman et al., 2003, pp. 315–317). Learning

strategies reflect the conscious effort a student makes to learn the TL, and is the element of

choice which gives the strategy significance in the language learning process (Šafranj & Gojkov-

Rajić, 2019, p. 692).

The following diagram illustrates Oxford’s taxonomy of learning strategies, showing the

two classes and the six groups mentioned above, and the nineteen sets of strategies which flow

from them. The Oxford Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) questionnaire,

explained in greater detail in Chapter 4.3 Study Design, is based upon these classifications.

27

Similar to LLS, self-regulated language learning (SRLL) strategies refer to the strategies

that help language learners take active roles in their learning and assist them to becoming

autonomous learners. In most SRLL models, the common four categories are cognitive,

affective, social and metacognitive. Oxford’s (2011) Strategic, Self-Regulation Model (S2R) also

classifies four categories: cognitive, affective, sociocultural-interactional, and metastrategies,

where the latter is an overarching category that interacts with the other three (Seker, 2016, p. 2).

Comparisons between the LLS and S2R models will be discussed in greater detail in the

Literature Review on the SILL Sub-Section 3.1.2 Theoretical Underpinning and Model Shifts.

Taken from Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know, Oxford, 1990, p. 17

Figure 3

Taken from Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Oxford, 1990, p. 17.

Oxford Taxonomy of Learning Strategies

28

Wharton (2000) has listed a number of factors which are assumed to affect language

learning strategies. The list includes such items as cultural background, the language being

studied, age, motivation and language learning styles. “Just as personality provides order and

predictability in the life-span story of an individual through the choices and decisions the person

makes among the many alternatives available (Datan et al., 1987; Wheelis, 1973), so learning

style variables serve as a way to organize choices among the wide range of affective responses

and learning strategies available to an individual” (M. Ehrman, 1990, p. 421). Thus it is no

surprise that SLA research also looks at the typology of learning styles and has developed a

number of different models and instruments to describe a learner’s style preference (Psaltou-

Joycey & Kantaridou, 2011, p. 103).

Learning style is the term used to refer to the preferred way(s) in which an individual

approaches a learning situation, and for the purposes of this thesis is specific to acquiring a

language. It is “an overall pattern that provides broad direction to learning and makes the same

instructional method beloved by some students and hated by others” (Oxford, 2003a, p. 273).

Oxford bases her use of the term ‘language learning style’ on what Lawrence (1984) considers

the four aspects of the learner: “(1) cognitive style, i.e., preferred or habitual patterns of mental

functioning; (2) patterns of attitudes and interests that affect what an individual will pay most

attention to in a learning situation; (3) a tendency to seek situations compatible with one’s own

learning patterns; and (4) a tendency to use certain learning strategies and avoid others” (Oxford,

1990b, p. 439).

Learning styles are general approaches to learning. Style differences can be evidenced in

different ways. The sensory style dimensions refer to an individual being a visual, auditory or

hands-on learner. Cognitive style dimensions include: concrete-sequential versus abstract-

29

intuitive (creative, speculative, non-sequential), global (big picture) versus particular (detail

oriented, focused); analyzing (performing logical analysis and contrast tasks) versus synthesizing

(assembling material in an integrative fashion); impulsive versus reflective; closure-oriented

(wanting clarity, organization, and rapid decisions) vs wanting to keep options open (tolerant of

ambiguity, not concerned about deadlines). The social style dimensions of learning are

extroversion or introversion (Andrew D. Cohen, 2003, p. 279; Oxford, 2003b, p. 273). While

students may stretch beyond their learning style boundaries to use any given strategy, their

learning style often determines their preferred choice of learning strategies (M. Ehrman &

Oxford, 1988, p. 180).

LLS, learning styles and the cognitive learning approach comprise only a portion of SLA

studies. LLS and learning styles, being more models than theories, were developed with a more

universal and learner-based focus. Therefore, elements of LLS and learning styles are often

found within other theories, research studies, methodologies and approaches. These elements

may factor in such other SLA theories as the social cultural theory (Lantolf, 2000) which

includes research in how language is used as social practice in conversation; systemic-functional

linguistic theory (Halliday, 1979) which focuses on the development of TL grammar for meaning

making in context; and language socialization theory (Kramsch, 2002) which studies the

constructs relevant to learners’ engagement in particular contexts (Chapelle, 2009, p. 747).

Larson-Freeman (1997) demonstrated that language has all the characteristics of dynamic

complex systems. “It is dynamic and changes over time both synchronically and diachronically;

it is complex with different subsystems (syntactical, phonological, lexical, textual) that interact;

it develops nonlinearly and sometimes is unpredictable and chaotic; it is sensitive to initial

conditions, open, self-organizing, feedback-sensitive, and adaptive; and there are attractors in

30

development.” This Dynamic Systems Theory approach shows the interrelatedness of the social

and individual cognitive dimensions of language learning (De Bot, 2008, p. 171).

2.6 Summary

A theory is a set of statements about natural phenomena that should be able to account for

and explain observed phenomena, and make predictions about what will or will not occur. A

theory will also unify the observations of researchers whose studies are conducted within its

framework. Theories provide a way in which researchers can advance science, and in turn

advances in science will advance theories. The goals in using the theoretical frameworks

described in this chapter are to (a) provide restrictions and direction in how to conduct the

research (psychometric, IRT and cognitive learning theories), (b) understand the broader

contexts of psychological and personality research (personality psychology, trait, and Jungian

theory), and (c) advance research (SLA theories).

31

3. An Overview of the SILL and the MBTI in Academic Research

The research for this thesis examines the intersection between two popular human

behaviour measurement tools and the efficacy of relying on the statistical correlations of such an

intersection. The SILL was designed specifically in relation to second language acquisition; and

while the MBTI casts a wider net regarding the uses of type in education, the Myers-Briggs

Foundation explicitly names and promotes foreign language learning as an area in which

understanding type can be of use to instructors. The span of time since the inception of the SILL

and the MBTI, their ease to administer, and the continued wide-spread popularity of both

instruments in addition to opening up them up to misuse, misrepresentation and misinformation

regarding the interpretation of assessment results, has provided researchers with tools that can

provide useful insights in well-conducted research. Both of these factors, whether considered

“positive” or “negative,” have resulted in a great deal of literature on each tool individually and

where they were combined in research on SLA or second language teaching.

3.1 The SILL

“[T]here are in fact three elements of foreign language education to consider: classroom

practice, theoretical models and empirical investigations, all of which are interrelated” (Byram et

al., 2013, p. 252). Using these three elements, I will be reviewing how the SILL was developed,

examining its theoretical strengths and weaknesses, delving into empirical investigations on the

instrument itself, and exploring research which used the SILL.

3.1.1 Classroom Practice and Theoretical Models

Research in this field started with observations and analyses of the strategies used by

good language learners, the categorization of these strategies and training learners in their use

(Huang, 2018, p. 647). Oxford’s seminal text Language Learning Strategies (1990) was written

32

not as a theoretical text, but to provide a taxonomy of these strategies and put forward a

systematic classroom practice for instructors of second languages to assist language learners to

learn more effectively. Her text provides a model of the strategies language learners can use,

how to determine which strategies are being used, how these strategies can be enhanced, and

how learners may be instructed to develop and strengthen those strategies not currently being

fully utilized. The text is primarily written to provide instructors with ideas and methods they can

use to assist their students “become more active, self-directed, and effective learners” (Oxford,

1990a, p. x). While she provides definitions and categorizes those elements which she has

determined constitute direct or indirect learning strategies based on the dichotomous idea of

learning strategies conceptualized by Rubin (1981) and Dansereau’s (1985) none second

language yet synchronous general learning concepts of content-independent versus content-

dependent strategies (Hsiao & Oxford, 2002, p. 370), it would be inappropriate to read Oxford’s

Language Learning Strategies as a theoretical text. What Oxford presents us with is a taxonomic

model of language learning strategies she has compiled, demonstrates how they are interrelated,

and provides practical information on how they may tested for and assessed by learners and

taught by instructors.

Oxford (1990) and Rubin (1981) are not the only researchers who offer a language

learning strategies model. A number of other taxonomies exist including the other well-

researched and oft-used model proposed by researchers O’Malley and Chamot (1990). Their

model distinguishes three broad types of learning strategies, namely metacognitive, cognitive

and socioaffective, placing emphasis on the interaction between teacher and student and on the

development of metacognitive strategies (Ehrman et al., 2003; Hsiao & Oxford, 2002). In their

study, Hsiao and Oxford (2002, p. 377) concluded there was statistical support for classifying

33

second language strategies in a systematic manner, including those proposed by O’Malley and

Chamot (1990) and Oxford (1990).

If we consider one of the most important goals of foreign language teaching to be the

acquisition of communicative competence, a term proposed by Hymes (1979) to describe a

person’s ability to communicate in an appropriate manner (as quoted in García-Carbonell et al.,

2001, p. 484), then “it can be said that all appropriate language learning strategies are directed

towards this broadly set goal” (Šafranj & Gojkov-Rajić, 2019, p. 693). Taxonomies were

developed through observing the learning strategies of “good language learners,” that is, those

who are willing and accurate guessers, have a strong drive to communicate, are willing to make

mistakes, look for patterns and monitor their own speech among other attributes (Rubin, 1975).

These good/successful language learners were found to generally use not only more learning

strategies consciously but those better suited for the particular task, and by effectively combining

strategies, they became more self-directed in their learning, thus being able to improve their

performance (Ehrman & Oxford, 1988, 1990; Oxford, 1993).

A concurrent 1990 study by Vann & Abraham looked at the LLS of unsuccessful learners

by linking strategies with task demands rather than merely counting the frequency with which

strategies are used. Their closer analysis of two unsuccessful learners provided evidence that

they were also active cognitive strategy-users, while often failing to apply strategies

appropriately to the task at hand, which suggested they were missing or not appropriately using

metacognitive strategies.

Griffiths and Parr (2001), provide a brief overview of various language learning and

teaching theories and point out how LLS operates comfortably alongside or fits within most of

them. “Learning from errors, developed from interlanguage theory, involves cognitive and

34

metacognitive strategies. Compensation and social strategies can easily be assimilated into

communicative competence theory and the communicative language-teaching approach” are two

among a number of their examples (p. 249).

With respect to classroom practice, an LLS model which prompts both learners and

instructors to consider the applicability of identified strategies, whether they are being used and

how learners may incorporate them more effectively into their studies, can be very useful. Good

language learners use any number of strategies to acquire a deep and proficient understanding of

the TL, with no single set of strategies appropriate to all learners equally (Fazeli, 2011, p. 1313).

From an academic perspective, the categorization of strategies is but one of eight

controversies identified by Griffiths & Oxford (2014, pp. 1–4) which have provoked debate and

criticism of LLS research, with the others being: strategy definitions, theoretical underpinnings,

language learning context, correlation between strategy use and proficiency, teachability and

learnability of strategies, research methodology, and data analysis (Dmitrenko, 2017, p. 8).

While each of these issues have relevance, are of interest and are interrelated, further

examination of LLS literature will be limited to its theoretical underpinnings.

3.1.2 Theoretical Underpinning and Model Shifts

The development of language teaching approaches has been characterized by fast

changes, trends and fads (Celce-Murcia, 2001 as found in Wu, 2016, p. 348), and the idea of

learning strategies immediately appealed to researchers and was enthusiastically embraced by

language teachers. However, no serious examination of the theoretical soundness of the concept

was conducted at the time or in the subsequent two decades following the publication of books

on the subject by O’Malley and Chamot (1990), Oxford (1990) and Wenden (1991).

35

In their early critique of language learning strategies, Dörnyei and Skehen (2003) labeled

not only the definitions but also the concepts offered thus far in the literature as “rather

inconsistent and elusive” (p. 608). They point out that in those early years, with learning

strategies such an exciting topic of study and quantitative research that included learning

strategies as either a dependent or independent variable producing interesting results, the lack of

a solid theoretical underpinning was tolerated. They argued that LLS research to the early 2000s

was often conducted in a “theoretical muddle” that would eventually be cleared away by

researchers restructuring the existing knowledge (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003, p. 610).12

Cohen (2003), among others, differentiated between language learning strategies – the

“conscious or semi-conscious thoughts and behaviors used by learners with the explicit goal of

improving their knowledge and understanding of a [TL]” – and language use strategies – those

which “come into play once the language material is already accessible” (p. 280). He is critical

of those target-language studies which take a broad pass at describing strategies and which then

arrive at broad conclusions about large numbers of subjects. Despite his concern, he does

conclude this study by noting it is valuable to have learners investigate their own language

learning and strategy use preferences, and that a good place to start is by having instructors

administer inventories such as the SILL and then provide guidance and follow-up regarding the

reported results.

The 2000s saw a shift within SLA research away from LLS toward self-regulated

learning (SRLL) which focuses on the degree to which learners consciously and proactively

contribute to the enhancement of their own learning. As active participants, learners set their own

12 For those who would like to read more about developing teaching practices from theory, see Wu, (2016) in which he explores the pedagogical implications of applying Hegel’s language learning concepts of intersubjectivity, the primacy of the spoken word over the written form, and the importance of the training of form or grammar to second language teaching.

36

learning goals and then attempt to monitor, regulate and control their cognition, motivations,

behaviours, learning environments and emotions to achieve them. This multidimensional

construct incorporates cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, behavioral and environmental

processes leading to a more dynamic concept than language learning strategies (Dörnyei &

Skehan, 2003; Habók & Magyar, 2018; Hsiao & Oxford, 2002; Hwang & Lee, 2019; Rose et al.,

2018). In short, SRLL skills may be defined as the fundamental capabilities that second language

learners must possess in order to manage an effective TL learning environment and be an

independent learner; and that learners who deeply and actively engage in SRLL’s recursive

phase of goal setting, monitoring, control and reflection, can enjoy their own learning (Hwang &

Lee, 2019, p. 545).

3.1.3 Empirical Investigations of the SILL

Over the past twenty years, a variety of assessment tools have been developed to measure

LLS, the most widely accepted and widespread tool being the SILL (Habók & Magyar, 2018, p.

2). The SILL focuses on specific strategic behaviours with scale descriptors asking for frequency

of strategy use. The psychometric characteristics of the SILL have been criticized as inaccurate

and unreliable because it uses standard Likert-type scales (Dörnyei, 2005; Amerstorfer, 2018;

Habók & Magyar, 2018). Likert scales produce ordinal data. Therefore arithmetical

manipulations, such as calculating the mean and standard deviation, and other parametric tests

are inappropriate, meaning non-parametric tests should be employed (Jamieson, 2004, p. 1217).

Parametric statistics rely on data having a normal distribution; that is, the data’s probability

curve is bell-shaped with the distributions symmetric around their mean. This requirement for a

normal distribution to conduct parametric statistical analysis can be difficult to verify for small

37

sample sizes. Nonparametric statistics do not depend on the data having a normal distribution

(Larson-Hall, 2015).

There is a shift to improve the reporting and analysis of studies within the field of

language learning that use statistical analysis. For example, Lindstromberg (2016) surveyed all

issues of Language Teaching Research from the first issue of 1997 to 2015 and reported on how

authors used and reported their data, and then offered criticism and suggestions for improvement.

In this article, Lindstromberg advocated for the use of nonparametric tests, particularly on small

sample sizes, and a move away from reporting a statistical difference on a simple “yes/no”

parametric test to using more robust statistical analysis tools which, for example, provide

information on the likely size of the effect. Lindstromberg noted that “the survey did come

across a small number of recent studies featuring use of such approaches” (p. 763).

An element of unreliability arises from the degree to which student self-reporting can be

relied upon to be an accurate reflection of actual use, since terms such as “often” or “frequently”

can be rated very differently between respondents (Gu et al., 1995, as cited in Griffiths &

Oxford, 2014, p. 4). Put simply, intervals between values on a Likert scale cannot be presumed

equal.

While data from questionnaire research can provide insight when patterns emerge,

differences or similarities among groups are uncovered, or relationships among variables are

ascertained, studies do not often go beyond this pattern finding or relationship mapping. Care

must be taken to ensure that the questionnaire, as a research tool, actually draws out the

information that it was designed to elicit (P. Y. Gu, 2016).

Each SILL item focuses specifically on one more-or-less corresponding LLS, making the

items noncumulative and rendering the SILL scoring of arithmetic averages of little statistical or

38

psychometric use. As behavioural items, a linear relationship between individual item scores and

the total scale scores cannot be assumed; “for example, one can be a good memory strategy user

in general while scoring low on some of the items in the memory scale” (Tseng et al., 2006, p.

83).

SILL scores on frequency of use – looking at quantity of strategy use rather than quality.

This can produce misleading results. Poor learners may use a number of strategies frequently but

ineffectively. On the other hand, learners progressing well through their language learning

journey, having acquired a broader knowledge base and deeper understanding of the TL, may

report a lower frequency of LLS use such as for items “asking others to correct pronunciation” or

“previewing the language lesson.”

A significant portion of this study was designed to provide empirical data using the SILL.

Therefore, the implications of using a Likert scale instrument will be taken into account during

data analysis (e.g., using nonparametric tests) and when drawing conclusions.

3.1.4 SILL use in SLA research

In her study which examined the continued relevance of SILL use in SLA research,

Amerstorfer (2018) noted that Oxford has “encouraged researchers and teachers to adapt the

SILL for their contexts by adding, omitting, or revising items.” Amerstorfer provided a number

of examples, including a study by Ardasheva & Tretter (2013) who adapted the SILL to

accommodate elementary, middle and high school learners of ESL in the USA, and a 2006 study

by Vandergrift which was adjusted to focus specifically on metacognitive strategies. My further

review of research using SILL found that Dmitrenko's (2017) study used participant interview

results to classify the strategies reported most used into the six SILL categories, and then took

the most prominent to create a new strategy questionnaire for multilingual learners, the

39

Multilingual SILL or M-SILL. Hwang & Lee (2019), in their work to develop a Scale of Self-

Regulated Language Learning, used the SILL as one of the questionnaires to ensure that

developed items were closely relevant to the target latent constructs they wanted to measure.

The continued use of the SILL as the questionnaire of choice in ongoing second language

learning research and the adaptation of the SILL in numerous other studies suggests that the

basic premise of modelling LLS remains an area of interest to SLA researchers. This study has

not been developed to exclusively examine just one strategy or to adapt its use to a specific

group and will therefore use the SILL questionnaire as originally crafted.

3.2 The MBTI

Where else to begin a literature review of the MBTI than in the official MBTI® Manual

itself (Myers et al., 1998). The publication is extensive and includes information on Jung’s

theory of type, the fleshing out of the Judging-Perceiving dichotomy by Briggs and Briggs-

Myers based on what Jung implied about a fourth type dimension in his writing, development of

the various questionnaires, questionnaire reliability and validity, and possible uses for the MBTI.

3.2.1 Reliability and Validity

Reliability of an instrument or questionnaire answers the question of whether the item

performs consistently over time. Reliability should estimate internal consistency and replicability

over a protected period of time while taking into account an acceptable level of variance that

researchers would expect to see given the uniqueness of respondents. Rather than a property of

the instrument, reliability is based on the results obtained on an evaluation. Therefore, it is most

appropriate to speak of reliability as a factor of test scores or measurement rather than of the

instrument itself (Gronlund & Linn, 1990, as quoted in Capraro & Capraro, 2002, p. 591).

40

The MBTI® Manual reports on the measurement precision of the internal consistency

reliability estimates for the MBTI using split-half reliability testing and coefficient alpha, test-

retest reliability estimates, and item response theory. Using split-half reliability testing on a U.S.

national sample of 3,036 participants, the correlation coefficient r for each of the four

dichotomies Extraversion-Introversion (EI), Sensing-iNtuitive (SN), Thinking-Feeling (TF), and

Judging-Perceiving (JP) produced scores ranging from .89 to .94 which fall within the excellent

reliability category where r = .80 or above (Myers et al., 1998, pp. 160–161).

The internal consistency of the four MBTI scales was estimated using coefficient alpha,

an index of the consistency of responses made by a particular group at a particular time to a

specific set of items designed to measure a psychological construct. Reports from the MBTI®

Manual show that whether looking at gender, age, adults within specific ethnic groups, or college

students within certain ethnic groups, reliability measured between r = .82 and r = .95, again

placing it within the excellent reliability category (Myers et al., 1998, p. 161).

IRT was used to estimate measurement precision by calculating the amount of

information available from each item that can be used to discriminate people of opposite

preferences and showed a greater level of precision for Form M than for the previous MBTI

instrument Form G against which it was measured (Myers et al., 1998, p. 165ff).

The test-retest for Form M (the instrument used for this thesis) showed an agreement

across the scales from a low of 84% in the TF scale to a high of 96% in the other three scales,

where the standard for assessing reliability as “excellent” is r = .80 (or 80%). The chance

probability of an individual choosing all four preferences on a retest is 6.25% (Myers et al.,

1998, pp. 162–164).

41

Capraro & Capraro (2002) conducted a meta-analytic reliability generalization study on

articles written between 1998 to September 2001 about the MBTI. Of the 210 articles utilized in

the study, only 7% reported at least one reliability estimate for the data on hand, 26% reported

reliability from prior studies or the test manual and 11% made a generic statement the MBTI was

reliable without providing any evidence. The remaining number of authors, 56%, did not

mention reliability at all. Vacha-Haase et al. (2000, p. 512) have given the name reliability

induction to the practice of referencing reliability coefficients from prior studies as relevant and

applicable to presume the score integrity of new study data.

While the Capraro & Capraro (2002) study concluded that the administrations of the

MBTI examined yielded scores with acceptable reliability (an average of about .81), the most

relevant reliability estimate for a study is the reliability coefficient computed on the data in hand.

Salter et al. (2005) begin their study by noting that a number of earlier test-retest reliability

studies are “somewhat mixed,” and suggest this may be due to a lack of recognition that the

MBTI includes two types of information which can be examined psychometrically – the four

letter type and the Clarity Preferences Index (CPI), a numerical score included on the assessment

reports and explained in greater detail in Section 3.2.2 Type v Trait – and that most test-retest

studies generally used only two data points (i.e., the sample population is only tested twice

within a certain time period) with “unsophisticated analytical strategies” (p. 208). For their study,

Salter et al. conducted a longitudinal configural frequency analysis across three administrations

of the MBTI in order to test if the measurement of innate personality dispositions is stable (e.g.,

scoring as an extravert over all three occasions was significantly overrepresented.) They also

tested for antitypes of stability and types of change, which are fluctuating patterns in the

personality preferences as measured by the MBTI, neither of which configuration should be

42

found if the theory holds true (p. 210). What Salter et al. (2005) found is that all eight stable

patterns show high statistically significant types of stability. Further, when looking for the

antitype of change, the three unstable patterns for Sensing, Thinking, and Perceiving were

statistically underrepresented, providing a second tier of preference stability (p. 213).

Concurrently in 2005, Pittenger published his critique of the MBTI, citing several test-

retest reports that suggest the reliability of the instrument decreases at a rate over retest intervals

comparable to other (trait) measures of personality. He concluded that the test-retest, therefore,

does not meet expectations developed from Jung’s theory that predicts “nonpathological

personality preferences should become and remain stable early in life” (2005, p. 214).

Pittenger (2005) also posited that the theory predicted between-group heterogeneity of

variance and the within-group homogeneity of variance implied a bimodal distribution of scores.

He did not find the bimodal distributions expected. Stein and Swan (2019) go on to note that the

most recent MBTI version applies IRT, in effect making it more difficult to get scores at the

midpoint of each dimensional score, in effect forcing a more bimodal distribution.

According to Myers et al. (1998), validity for the MBTI is determined by its ability to

demonstrate relationships and outcomes as predicted by Carl Jung’s theory of psychological

types. If Jung’s theory describes preferences that do exist, and if the MBTI instrument

adequately indicates those preferences, then surface behaviours should occur in the directions

predicted by the theory within reasonable levels of variance to account for things such as

measurement error, respondent emotional state or environment context which may interfere with

expression of type preferences. The MBTI® Manual examines evidence of the validity of the four

preference scales by correlating them to a variety of scales from other instruments (such as the

FIRO-B®, the Adjective Check List, Strong Interest Inventory® Tool, Salience Inventory, and

43

Maslach Burnout Inventory among others). These analyses support the predictions of type theory

regarding the meaning of and the behaviours believed to be associated with the four dichotomies.

A number of studies looking at very specific personality aspects are also included in the MBTI®

Manual; for example, a reanalysis of a study of orientation to time which supports the predicted

differences in the experience and use of time for the different types (Myers et al., 1998, pp. 171–

219).

The Stein & Swan (2019) study is highly critical of the MBTI instrument. They have

written their evaluative article to “increase academic awareness of this incredibly popular idea

and provide a novel teaching reference for its conceptual flaws” (p. 1). Using Shaw & Costanzo's

(1982) three criteria, Stein & Swan find that the MBTI theory falters on rigorous theoretical

criteria in that it (1) lacks agreement with known data and facts, (2) does not posses internal

consistency and (3) lacks testability (the ability to generate empirical predictions). They argue

that despite its popularity, the MBTI does not represent a suitable framework for understanding

personality, and note that it is not sold based on its theoretical rigor but on its ability to help its

users, a concept which is also fraught with theoretical issues, questions regarding the usefulness

of “inaccurate feedback” and other internal inconsistencies. Recognizing the appeal of the

MBTI-style theory and that attacking it on theoretical or psychometric grounds may have little

effect, Stein and Swan conclude “[a] challenge for academics is to get others to share their

valuation of the scientific process in creating knowledge about human behaviour” (p. 9).

Quantifying differences in personality remains fraught with issues around empirical

reliability and theoretical validity. While Stein and Swan make a compelling argument against

the use of the MBTI, this study was designed to utilize this instrument because of its continued

use over a long period of time, familiarity within the general population, its user-friendly online

44

format, its use of dichotomous categorizations for statistical analysis purposes, and because

results obtained from this research can be compared to the results from earlier, similar studies.

3.2.2 Type v Trait

The MBTI is a personality inventory rather than a test of skills or abilities. Jung believed

that psychological type reflects a person’s innate tendencies and disposition and that this type

grows and develops over the course of a lifetime (Jung, 1921a). Conceptually, the letters (e.g.,

ESNP: Extraversion, Sensing, iNtuition, Perceiving) capture an individual’s basic personality

dimensions. Due to the misinterpretation of the Clarity Preferences Index (CPI), a numerical

score included on the assessment reports, there are times the MBTI is mistaken for a personality

trait measure rather than a measure of dynamic typology (Myers et al., 1998; Salter et al., 2005).

Unlike numerical scores on trait instruments that are designed to reflect the degree or

magnitude of the trait being measured (Pittenger, 2005, p. 212), the PCI is designed to show only

how sure the respondent is that she or he prefers one pole of the dichotomy over its opposite. PCI

scores are determined for each preference from a differential between the frequencies of

endorsements for one side versus the other of the dichotomy. Thus, the number associated with

an MBTI preference is better interpreted as providing information about the likelihood that the

preference has been correctly reported. It is incorrect to assume that a person with a PCI of N30

has a better command of iNtuition than a person with N15. A larger number simply means that

the respondent, when forced to choose, is clearer about what he or she prefers. The PCI was

designed to be an indication of the MBTI’s capacity to measure one’s personality at the point in

time that the instrument is given. As a result, PCIs might be anticipated to fluctuate over time

based on environmental influences (Myers et al., 1998; Salter et al., 2005).

45

The type-trait distinction leads to quite different meanings for the scores of trait

instruments and MBTI PCIs. For example, a person with a high score on the Extraversion scale

of the NEO Personality Inventory™ (NEO-PI™), a tool based upon the FFM (Costa & McCrae,

1985), is seen as having more Extraversion than a person with a low score on that scale, and a

person with a low score on the scale may be viewed as having a deficit of the identified

personality trait of Extraversion. In contrast, MBTI PCIs indicate how clearly a respondent

prefers one of two opposite poles of a dichotomy, not how much of that pole she or he has.

MBTI sorts individuals into opposite categories rather than measuring the amount or degree of a

trait as is done in trait-based instruments (Myers et al., 1998).

“Attention should be given to the fact that having a personality trait, which may be

organically based, is a notion that is different from how that trait is expressed, which relies on

experience and development” (Salter et al., 2005, p. 218). In their work on Whole Trait Theory

and the FFM, Fleeson & Jayawickreme (2015) put it this way, “[T]rait theory has described the

what but few theories have attempted to explain the why or how” (p. 83).

As noted above, Salter raised the point that the expression of personality, which arises

from experience and development and is therefore more in line with concepts found in trait

theory, may be based in biology which is conceptually more in line with type theory; in other

words, positioning some personality research into the nurture/nature debate.

Furnham et al. (2003) designed their study specifically to examine the relationship

between the Revised NEO-Personality Inventory which measures the FFM and the MBTI.

Results demonstrated an overlap between the two personality measures, with the greatest

correlation13 measured between the FFM Extraversion scale and the MBTI Extraversion-

13 Correlations were measured using Bayesian probabilities which Blutner & Hochnadel (2010) contend is methodologically unsound for Jungian theory. Alternatively, they proposed a mathematical framework of modern

46

Introversion dimension. Openness to experience (FFM scale) was negatively correlated with

Sensing and positively correlated with iNtuition. Agreeableness (FFM scale) was negatively

correlated with Thinking and positively correlated with Feeling. Conscientiousness (FFM scale)

was positively correlated with Judging and negatively corelated with Perceiving. Of interest is

that Neuroticism (FFM scale) was negatively correlated with MBTI extraversion and positively

correlated with Introversion “although this correlation was not very high in comparison to the

other correlations” (Furnham et al., 2003, p. 583). This study, using a large sample (900

participants) replicated the results from earlier studies conducted by McCrae & Costa (1989),

MacDonald et al. (1994) and Furnham (1996).

The next section of this literature review will focus on how the MBTI is used with respect

to research on learning behaviours.

3.2.3 Practice

According to the MBTI® Manual: “The goal of making psychological type useful in

people’s lives is realized in [the next] chapters … The emphasis … is on what is practical and

useful, backed up by theoretical consistency and available research evidence” (Myers et al.,

1998, p. 221). The text looks at using type in counseling and psychotherapy, in education, in

career counseling, in organizations, and in multicultural settings.

Where the MBTI is used with respect to language learning, it is often used as the variable

denoting learning style. “Learning reflects a change in the learner’s behavior based on what is

experienced … [The] learning style of the student can be understood by observing the person’s

behaviour … MBTI provides a way to deduct a student’s learning style” (Vincent & Ross, 1996

quantum theory which dynamically relates states and observables, concluding that “quantum theory, as a mathematical construction, provides a natural framework for giving a sound foundation to C.G. Jung’s theory of personality” (p. 257).

47

as quoted in Ayadi et al., 2006). Ayadi et al. looked at correlations between MBTI learning style

and university student performance on open-ended and multiple choice test questions of 244

students in finance and management science. They found that intuitive and thinking students did

not do well on an open-ended quantitative test; and intuitive, sensory and thinking students

performed poorly on an opened-ended theory test. In the multiple choice quantitative test,

intuitive students performed poorly, exactly the opposite result for the multiple choice theory test

where intuitive students performed well, but the feeling, sensory and thinking students did not.

From their results, they concluded that students’ performance, as measured by test grades, can be

influenced by the test format (p. 91).

Seeking to uncover different learning behaviours, Hwu (2007) used computer-assisted

language learning to record 34 fifth-semester Spanish learner’s behaviours with a grammar

application. Different behaviours were uncovered with a significant positive correlation between

the sequence in which computer pages for the specific grammar lessons were accessed, and the

Sensing personality dimension. Sensing and Intuitive students differed in the way they preferred

to receive and assimilate new information within the study’s computerized learning context. Of

note is that different learning behaviours were not related to knowledge gains.

Steele and Young conducted two similar studies (2008, 2011) using the MBTI as a stand-

alone measurement tool comparing type differences first between two university majors and

secondly between two similar professional careers. The first study compared music education

and music therapy majors, the second compared professional music educators and music

therapists to undergraduate majors. The results of the 2008 study found that the MBTI for both

music education and music therapy majors indicate an overall preference for Extravert-iNtuition-

Feeling-Perception (ENFP), which supported three earlier named studies. The second highest

48

preference of music education majors and music therapy majors, while displaying an overlap in

type, began to diverge (ENFJ, INFP and INFJ). The researchers concluded that the results

indicated more similarities, all are iNtuitive Feelers, than differences between these two groups,

with music therapy students demonstrating more preferences for introversion. The second Steel

and Young study (2011) also suggested that personality tendencies between the two groups,

music educators and music therapy professionals, are similar in many respects. In particular

when comparing their results to the 2008 study, they found the same divergence between the

extraversion-introversion for music therapy professionals, and the same strong NFP combination

for both groups. They found that when combined, the studies lend support to Jung’s type theory

notation of consistency in personality type over life span.

In a study examining student performance at a University of Toronto hands-on, project-

based engineering design course, Emami et al. (2019) used the MBTI tool as the variable to

explore potential correlations with performance to personality type. What they found was that

certain MBTI types are “reasonably good indicators for performance in the course due to the

natural inclinations that students with those indicators possess,” and that “the interplay between

specific indicators … were shown to be beneficial for certain types of assessments” (p. 30). They

suggest that this type of analysis may help educators create assessment schemes less biased to

specific learning styles and personality types.

MBTI has also been used as a tool to examine teaching styles. Bell et al., (2011)

wondered whether it was possible that people with differing preferences related more to the way

in which something was said rather than to what was said and whether this “mismatch” of

personality types could promote misunderstanding between instructor and learner (p. 191).

Aggregate data for 154 teachers and 1395 first-year medical students at the Indiana University

49

School of Medicine was analyzed based on the MBTI, and the relationship examined between

teacher or learner and preference using Chi-square tests of independence. Their results suggested

that while student satisfaction is influenced by a congruence between personality styles of

teachers and learners, other factors such as a student’s level of interest in the course content,

career motivation and the learning environment could not be ruled out. They concluded,

however, that given teachers traditionally received poor student evaluations from those learners

where they differed on the Sensing/Intuition, Thinking/Feeling and Judging/Perceiving scales,

“careful attention should be given to the manner in which instruction and feedback are delivered

to avoid misunderstandings that can occur because of incongruence between personality styles”

(p. 192).

3.3 Studies using both MBTI and SILL

A tendency toward quantitative psychological studies, exemplified by statistical reporting

about styles, strategies, anxiety, beliefs and academic performance using surveys, tests and other

measurement instruments, dominated much of the SLA and applied linguistics research in the

1990s and 2000s. This tradition focused on the characteristics of groups, without looking closely

at the highly personalized, dynamic, socially interactive relationships among people engaged in

second language learning. Ehrman & Oxford’s (1988) pilot MBTI-SILL study, detailed below,

falls squarely into this tradition. The value of this form of research is that it reveals the big

picture perspective across large numbers of individuals and variables simultaneously. The

drawback is that the finely tuned, detailed analysis of individual cases is typically missing

(Oxford, 2003a, pp. 275–276).

Ehrman & Oxford's (1988) study examined LLS in relation to sex differences, career

choice, cognitive style, and aspects of personality. For purposes of their study, cognitive style

50

and personality variables were treated together as psychological type using the MBTI

classifications. Their sample was made up of 79 adult language learners that Ehrman & Oxford

identified as “relatively sophisticated.” The study used the 121-item SILL developed for the

Defense Language Institute and a five-point Likert scale covering four language skill areas:

listening, reading, speaking, and writing.

When looking at differences by psychological type, the Ehrman & Oxford (1988) study

found that extraverts significantly prefer visual strategies and report greater use of affective

strategies than introverts. Introverts tended to look for meaning and context before acting. “The

most striking result is the statistically significant connection between intuition and strategies for

searching for and communicating meaning, affective strategies, authentic language use, and

formal model building” (p. 261). Sensing had no significant relationship with any of the SILL

factors which the researchers attributed to either (a) sensing students being exceptionally good

classroom language learners or (b) that they were using strategies not reported on the SILL.

There were no significant findings regarding their hypothesized relationship between SILL

factors and the Thinking/Feeling scale. Finally, Judgers showed a significant preference for

general study strategies while Perceivers showed a significant preference when searching for and

communicating meaning. This exploratory study flung the door wide open for SLA studies using

both the MBTI and SILL.

For their study conducted with 364 senior high school students in Taiwan studying

English, Chen & Hung (2012) used the MBTI and the Perceptual Learning Preferences Survey, a

self-report survey using a three-point Likert scale to measure participant’s perceptual style

preferences, and the SILL as their variables. Their results corroborated the Ehrman and Oxford

(1989) study which found that intuitive types chose compensation over other strategies.

51

However, unlike the Ehrman and Oxford (1989) study, Chen & Hung’s results indicated that

extroverted students used compensation, metacognitive, cognitive memory, affective, and social

strategies more than their introverted counterparts, and they did not find that sensing types

reported frequent use of memory strategies. The researchers postulated the inconsistency may

stem from a difference in cultural backgrounds between their and the Ehrman and Oxford study

participants.

Starting from the premise that general intelligence (as measured by IQ tests) may predict

what a person can do, Sharp (2008) set out to determine whether personality type might predict

what a person is likely to do (p. 18). The study was conducted with 100 undergraduates at a

university in Hong Kong to investigate personality differences and strategy use (using MBTI and

SILL), and to identify any relationships between those variables and the students’ language

proficiency. Using the MBTI as the dependent variable and strategy use as the independent

variable, the only significant relationships found were with respect to those identified by the

MBTI as introverts. Introversion was negatively related to the SILL social strategies and

positively related to metacognitive strategy use. There was no significant relationship found

between SILL categories and proficiency (assessed with a standardized English language test.)

“The study failed to find any simple direct relationship between personality, learning strategies

and second language proficiency” (p. 20). Sharp speculates one reason this study could not

establish a relationship between the variables is that, as a test for personality preference, the

MBTI does not include factors such as student maturity, motivation or situation factors. These

factors are also mentioned in the Carrell et al. (1996) study which presents results of a study

looking for correlations between personality types of English as foreign language students in

Indonesia and academic performance. Other than some significant scoring differences between

52

Extraverts and Introverts, their study also failed to establish more than a few direct relationships

between learners’ type preference and language performance.

Wakamoto (2000) used both the MBTI and SILL instruments when looking for

differences in LLS between extraverted and introverted junior college students in Japan majoring

in English. The MBTI Japanese trial version Form G and the Japanese translation of the 50 item

SILL devised for speakers of other languages learning English were used. Using factor analysis,

Wakamoto broke the SILL into six factors and used Pearson’s correlation method to find a

relationship between them and the extraversion-introversion indices in the MBTI. Two of the six

factors, “functional practice strategies,” in which the focus of practice is on actual language use,

and “social-affective strategies,” which mediate the relationship between people, were found to

have a positive significant correlation with extraversion. Unlike the Ehrman & Oxford (1990)

study, Wakamoto could not confirm any preferred LLS in terms of factors or individual

strategies for introverts and wonders if the data collection method, specifically limited to the use

of self-report questionnaires, may have affected the results.

A large number of studies, including the ones noted above, find connections between

extraversion and/or introversion and LLS, particularly in the affective and social categories. In

contrast, this study will use the MBTI NS and TF scales as to identify and analyze correlations

between each scale and the three direct SILL and metacognitive strategy categories which fall

within the cognitive learning theory framework.

53

4. Research Questions, Design and Data

This research project was designed to gather quantitative personality type (MBTI) and

language learning strategy use (SILL) data from university students enrolled in second language

classes in order to determine relationships between these two data sets. Where such connections

are found, they will be examined for statistically significant correlations. The study will also use

responses from the open-ended questions to determine whether language used by the participants

predicts personality type or language learning strategy preferences. The research is conducted for

the purpose of providing potential instruction and curricular design information to instructors of

university and adult second language courses.

Taking into account learner personality type, specifically with respect to the gathering

and processing of information, would permit instructors to craft instruction delivery, in-class and

homework activities, and assessment tools which take into account all preference types, thereby

giving each student an opportunity to complete tasks which come more easily to them and giving

space for them to stretch their learning skills. Understanding connections between personality

types and language learning strategies will also provide instructors with insight into which

strategies are taken up by learners in a manner that seems more intuitive, as opposed to those

which may require more explicit instruction and prompting to encourage students to broaden

their use of study tools. If language use provides instructors with cues to second language learner

cognitive learning preferences, then ongoing classroom instruction may be moderated and

modulated more pragmatically.

In the following sections of this chapter, both quantitative study hypotheses and the

qualitative research questions will be fully stated. Information regarding the biographical and

qualitative questionnaire development and instrument tool selection processes, website

54

development and study flow, participant recruitment and feedback will be outlined. Examples of

each questionnaire will be provided, with appendices providing additional information on each

section of the research, screenshot captures of the website and reporting criteria.

The final section of this chapter will provide biographical information on the participants,

tables of raw data results for the MBTI and SILL, and examples of the qualitative data gathered.

4.1 Hypotheses

This study was designed to test the following two hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 (H1)

There is a statistically significant variation between the MBTI personality type

distribution of the general population in English Canada and second language learners enrolled

in undergraduate Indo-European language courses at the University of Waterloo.

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

There is a correlation between personality types as determined by the MBTI Indicator

and language learning strategies as defined and categorized by the SILL, Version 5.1.

4.2 Qualitative Data Research Questions

Participants were asked several open-ended questions, with very little in the way of

instruction or researcher prompt as to how they were to be answered. Looking for keywords

within responses to the first two questions “What comes to mind when you think about foreign-

language learning?” and “What comes to mind when you think about the language you are

studying?”, I will seek to determine whether participant MBTI cognitive functions may be

detected based upon language use and words chosen. Keywords will be chosen which indicate or

hint at elements common to particular perceiving or judging type learning styles. For example,

Myers (1998) cites numerous studies providing examples which show that Sensing types have

55

been found to like sequential learning (Drummond & Stoddard, 1992) and approach learning

through fact retention, methodical study, and serialist learning (Beyler & Schmeck, 1992). Using

the same keywords, the research will examine the SILL statements for similarities and overlaps

in language or concept (e.g. methodical study) to determine whether participants who use those

keywords score higher on matching LLS.

4.3 Study Design

This study employs a cross-sectional design methodology to deductively test H1 and H2.

Cross-sectional research designs have no time dimension, test existing differences, and the

groups tested are selected based on existing differences rather than random allocation. Therefore,

the research focuses specifically on personality type and language learning strategies of

undergraduate Indo-European language students at the University of Waterloo (UWaterloo)

during Fall 2016, under the supervision of Dr. Mathias Schulze, and Spring 2018 under the

supervision of Dr. Emma Betz. Participants were recruited from undergraduate in-class or on-

line second language courses at the university. There are no exclusions based on culture, gender,

race, ethnicity, age or accessibility.

Participants were asked to complete three on-line tasks: a biographical language survey,

an externally generated and scored psychometric assessment (MBTI), and a standardized

language learning strategy survey (SILL). The tasks were chosen and designed to allow

participants to complete them independently of one another at times convenient to the individual.

Students were given the study website address which provided study information, ethics

approval information, contact information, and links to each of the tasks and the feedback page.

Upon completion of all tasks, participants were invited to select a time to attend a webinar-based

56

feedback session in order to obtain their personalized MBTI and SILL results and receive a $10

participation payment. At the conclusion of active research, the website was taken down.

Email address information was used to link the electronic surveys and assessments during

the data collection phase of the project. The researcher created the online surveys and to enhance

participant privacy, disabled the collection of IP addresses. The survey website and the research

home page website were both hosted in Canada. The external psychometric assessment for the

MBTI is accessed through psychometrics.com, the Canadian subsidiary of the Myers-Briggs

Foundation (formerly CPP Inc.), which use Canadian web servers and data storage facilities. The

psychometric assessment portal is administered by the researcher who can control the optional

identifiable data flow. All optional biographical data was not requested, completed nor

submitted.

An analytic induction study will examine whether language used in the open-ended

biographical language survey is predictive of MBTI type. Analytic induction requires a search of

the data for those cases which do not fit the initial hypothesis, and through examination of those

deviant cases re-theorize the research topic. Where a retheorization of the research topic is not

possible from the existing dataset, analytic induction methodology requires a collection of new

data to continue the study.

4.3.1 Recruitment

Participants were recruited from both on-line and in-class undergraduate second language

courses offered at UWaterloo in Fall 2016 (October and November) and Spring 2018 terms

(May). On-line course instructors were asked to share a recruitment letter (Appendix A) on the e-

learning platform. In-class recruitment was conducted by the researcher. An email was sent to

the individual course instructors requesting two to three minutes of time either at the beginning

57

or end of class. Where access was granted, the researcher very briefly explained the research

project. The website address was written on the blackboard for reference purposes and the

researcher handed out the University of Waterloo Office of Research Ethics approved

information letter to everyone in attendance (Appendix B).

Recruited students were directed to the research website home page (Appendix C), where

they were provided with a synopsis of the research project and participant information. To be

eligible to participate in the research study, the individual had to (a) be a student at the

University of Waterloo, (b) be currently enrolled in an undergraduate second language learning

class (offered either in class or on-line), and (c) have read the Information Letter. Participants

were directed to choose the “Language Learning Survey” button which would allow them to

enrol as a participant and continue on to the first of the three online tasks.

The link to the biological language survey, on the website designed as “Language

Learning Survey,” opened a survey document entitled Language Biography Survey which

consisted of two parts. The first part provided a welcome statement and links to the Information

Letter and back to the research website, and an electronic consent form (Appendix D). In order to

move onto the second part of the survey, each of the three fields of the consent form attesting to

a participant’s informed consent (First Name, Surname, and UWaterloo email) had to be

completed. At this point, the second portion of the survey, identified as Task #1, became

available to the participant.

4.3.2 Language Biography Survey

Upon completing the consent form, the next page opened to the language biography

survey proper (Appendix E). Unlike the consent form section of this survey, none of the eleven

58

answer fields were coded to require a response, thereby allowing participants to determine how

much information they wished to share with the researcher.

The first eight questions were designed to provide the researcher with non-identifying

statistical information on the participants: gender, year of birth, program of study, current term of

study, current language classes, previous post secondary school education classes, first

language(s) spoken, and second language(s) spoken plus some clarification regarding the

experience around the second language experience such as “first year of high school,” “lived six

months in Mexico,” etc.

The final three questions of the survey were open-ended and designed to elicit some

information on university learner attitudes towards language learning and perceptions around

foreign language and culture: (1) What comes to mind when you think about foreign language

learning? (2) What comes to mind when you think about the language you are studying? (3)

What comes to mind when you think about the countries where this language is used? The

people? The culture? The second and third questions were prefaced with a request for those

participants involved in multiple language courses to answer questions based on only one

language and to indicate in their answer which language they were referencing.

The survey was designed to take between 5 and 10 minutes to complete depending on the

complexity of the answers provided to the final three questions. Upon completing this task, the

final page of the survey opened which provided participants with a link back to the website home

page, the MBTI log-in page and the SILL Questionnaire. Participants were asked to complete the

next two tasks within two weeks and were advised the tasks could be completed in any order. For

purposes of this thesis, the MBTI assessment is designated Task #2.

59

4.3.3 MBTI – Form M

The researcher was certified by Psychometrics Inc., the Canadian subsidiary of The

Myers-Briggs Foundation to administer and evaluate this assessment. Therefore, the link to the

MBTI opened onto a Psychometrics customized log-in page which welcomed the participant to

this research project task (Appendix F). Participants were asked to use their UWaterloo email

address as the user ID information and to create their own password. Participants were then able

to select the MBTI® Step 1 Form M Assessment to complete, which for purposes of this study,

was the only assessment made available. As this is an externally administered assessment,

participants were asked to accept the Psychometrics Terms and Conditions of use, provide their

first name, surname and email address and were then presented with the Psychometrics Form M

Instructions.

The instrument consists of 93 paired, forced-choice questions (questions where the

respondent is limited to choosing only one of two possible answers), which the assessment

breaks into three parts. Part I – Word Phrases, asks participants to select the answer that comes

closest to telling how they usually feel or act; Part II – Word Pairs, asks participants to select the

word in each pair which has the greatest appeal based on meaning; and, Part III – Word Phrases,

which again asks participants to select the answer that comes closest to telling how they usually

feel or act. As the MBTI is a proprietary instrument, the inclusion of the entire tool is not

permitted. However, providing examples of the type of questions is permitted and these are

included as Appendix G.

Upon completion of the 93 questions, participants could review their responses or submit

them. Upon submission participants received an automated response indicating the task was

completed. The researcher received an email notification from Psychometrics (Appendix H)

60

indicating assessment completion. It is only at this stage that the researcher was made aware a

participant’s enrolment in the study.

Participants would return to the webpage to access the link to take them to Task #3.

4.3.4 SILL – Version 5.1

Version 5.1 of the SILL is designed specifically for English Speakers Learning a New

Language. The survey consists of 80 statements which are answered using a five-point Likert

scale with answers ranging from a value of 1 for “Never or almost never true or me” to a value of

5 for “Always or almost always true of me.” The researcher modified the electronic survey to

begin with the following non-SILL fields: Please enter your UWaterloo email address (to allow a

participant’s SILL responses to be connected to their MBTI results). Are you currently studying

more than one language? If the answer to the second question was yes, the participant was asked

to select one language on which to focus while answering the SILL questions and to identify that

language in the space provided.

The balance of the survey consisted of the 80 SILL questions (Appendix I), each of

which required a response. The survey was designed in this way so that participants could not

inadvertently miss answering a question. In order for participants to retain the ability to decide

whether they wished to provide a response to a particular question, the option “Decline to

answer” was added to each statement. Participants were advised the survey would take

approximately 30 minutes to complete.

As noted in the SILL literature review (Chapter 3.1.3 Empirical Investigations of the

SILL), there are issues with the psychometric measures of this instrument, and while it may not

61

be the most recent nor the most comprehensive in the field of language learning strategies,14 it

was used for this research because of its simplicity for participants to complete, its focus on

language learning, and its extensive use which provides ample opportunity to assess similar

studies for correlations, findings and pitfalls, along with the applicability of the data to inform

instructor approach when guiding learners to enhance their ability to learn.

The end of the survey instructed participants to go back to the website to book a feedback

time.

4.3.5 Feedback Session

Upon completion of their third task, participants were directed to return to the website

and select an electronic feedback meeting with the researcher from a list of upcoming dates and

times. They could submit their selection after completing the ‘email,’ ‘first name’ and ‘last

name’ fields. The website feedback page was set up to automatically forward an email to the

researcher.

Receipt of the email prompted the researcher to create a “GoToWebinar™” event and

send an email to the participant with a link to the applicable GoToWebinar site requesting their

registration. GoToWebinar would then follow-up with confirmation emails to both the

participant and the researcher as the host of the webinar. One hour prior to the scheduled webinar

start time, GoToWebinar would generate a reminder email to all participants including me in my

role as host.

Prior to the webinar, the researcher would prepare both the SILL and MBTI reports. An

email with the SILL report attached was sent to the participant approximately 30 minutes prior to

14 See for example the Self-Regulated Foreign Language Learning Strategy Questionnaire, Short Self-Regulation Questionnaire, the Metacognitive English Language Learning Strategies instrument or the Writing Strategies for Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire

62

the initiation of the webinar (see sample SILL report Appendix J). Approximately five minutes

into the feedback session, an email with the MBTI report, a one-page sheet of Additional

Information specific to the participant’s Psychometrics generated result, and a handout with a

brief overview of all 16 MBTI types was sent to the participant (see Appendix K for samples of

the MBTI report and the additional information handouts).

Most feedback sessions were one on one with only two sessions being attended by the

maximum allotted two student participants. The feedback session power point presentation

(Appendix L) was broken up into four sections: the welcome, the SILL assessment, the MBTI

assessment, and the wrap up which included providing the participant with the e-transfer

password for the participation fee. For security purposes, the e-transfer password was changed

for each presentation. E-transfer was accepted by all but one participant as the means to receive

their $10 remuneration. For one participant, a cash payment was made, and a receipt to evidence

payment received was obtained.

4.4 Data

This section of the thesis introduces the research sample population to the reader. A total

of 57 participants initiated the Language Biography Survey (Task #1). It was completed by 56

each of whom completed the MBTI (Task #2). Of the 56 who completed Tasks #1 and #2, 41

also completed the SILL questionnaire (Task #3). Therefore, for this research project n = 41.

Frequency tables on various aspects of the sample population follow.

63

Participants ranged in age from 20 to 67 (Tables 4.4.1a and 4.4.1b), and the

overwhelming majority (85.4%) identify as female (Table 4.4.2).

Age

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid 20 1 2.4 2.4 2.4

21 2 4.9 4.9 7.3

22 7 17.1 17.1 24.4

23 8 19.5 19.5 43.9

24 8 19.5 19.5 63.4

25 6 14.6 14.6 78.0

26 1 2.4 2.4 80.5

27 1 2.4 2.4 82.9

28 2 4.9 4.9 87.8

32 1 2.4 2.4 90.2

34 1 2.4 2.4 92.7

41 1 2.4 2.4 95.1

43 1 2.4 2.4 97.6

67 1 2.4 2.4 100.0

Total 41 100.0 100.0

Gender

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Female 35 85.4 85.4 85.4

Male 6 14.6 14.6 100.0

Total 41 100.0 100.0

One of the major criteria for participation in this research was enrolment in a UWaterloo

undergraduate language course. Each undergraduate year, and graduate and post-graduate study

years are represented in the sample (Table 4.4.3). Each of the six UWaterloo faculties is also

represented, however one post-graduate participant did not associate themselves with a particular

faculty (Table 4.4.4).

Statistics Age N Valid 41

Missing 0

Mean 26.05

Median 24.00

Mode 23a

Table 4.4.2

Table 4.4.1a

Table 4.4.1b

a Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown.

64

Term

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Grad 3 7.3 7.3 7.3

Post 2 4.9 4.9 12.2

1A 5 12.2 12.2 24.4

1B 1 2.4 2.4 26.8

1C 1 2.4 2.4 29.3

2A 6 14.6 14.6 43.9

2B 4 9.8 9.8 53.7

2C 1 2.4 2.4 56.1

3A 8 19.5 19.5 75.6

3B 3 7.3 7.3 82.9

4A 5 12.2 12.2 95.1

4B 1 2.4 2.4 97.6

5B 1 2.4 2.4 100.0

Total 41 100.0 100.0

Faculty

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid No Information 1 2.4 2.4 2.4

Applied Health Sciences 3 7.3 7.3 9.8

Arts 18 43.9 43.9 53.7

Engineering 1 2.4 2.4 56.1

Environment 5 12.2 12.2 68.3

Math 4 9.8 9.8 78.0

Science 9 22.0 22.0 100.0

Total 41 100.0 100.0

Participants were drawn primarily from French, German and Spanish courses. One

individual was studying Croatian and two students were attending at least one course from two

different undergraduate language studies offered at UWaterloo (noted as multilingual on Table

Table 4.4.3

Table 4.4.4

65

4.4.5). Each of the two “multilingual” course takers is enrolled in a German course, with one

participant combining that with a Korean language course, the other a French language course.

Current Course

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Croatian 1 2.4 2.4 2.4

French 11 26.8 26.8 29.3

German 14 34.1 34.1 63.4

Multilingual 2 4.9 4.9 68.3

Spanish 13 31.7 31.7 100.0

Total 41 100.0 100.0

In Task #1, participants were asked to provide information on first language(s) spoken

(Table 4.4.6). No description nor criteria was given by the researcher for the term “First

Language,” leaving it to the participant to determine how to interpret the phrase and apply it to

their own situation. Given that UWaterloo is located in English-speaking Canada, it is not

surprising that the majority of the participants, twenty-seven (65.9%), noted their first language

as English. Of greater interest are the five participants (12.2%), who listed two or more

languages as their first languages. Going back into the raw data, each of the five who identified

as having multiple first languages included English as one of their two or more first languages.

The other languages were French, Hindi, Mandarin, Punjabi, Thai and Urdu.

Table 4.4.5

66

First Language

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Chinese 1 2.4 2.4 2.4

English 27 65.9 65.9 68.3

German 1 2.4 2.4 70.7

Korean 1 2.4 2.4 73.2

Mandarin 3 7.3 7.3 80.5

Multilingual 5 12.2 12.2 92.7

Polish 1 2.4 2.4 95.1

Portuguese 1 2.4 2.4 97.6

Tagalog 1 2.4 2.4 100.0

Total 41 100.0 100.0

Tables 4.4.7 and 4.4.8 provide basic information regarding the MBTI results and average

SILL scores for the 41 participants who make up the study sample.

MBTI

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid ISTJ 6 14.6 14.6 14.6

ISFJ 1 2.4 2.4 17.1

INFJ 4 9.8 9.8 26.8

INTJ 5 12.2 12.2 39.0

ISTP 1 2.4 2.4 41.5

ISFP 4 9.8 9.8 51.2

INFP 4 9.8 9.8 61.0

INTP 1 2.4 2.4 63.4

ESFP 2 4.9 4.9 68.3

ENFP 1 2.4 2.4 70.7

ENTP 2 4.9 4.9 75.6

ESTJ 2 4.9 4.9 80.5

ESFJ 4 9.8 9.8 90.2

ENFJ 1 2.4 2.4 92.7

ENTJ 3 7.3 7.3 100.0

Total 41 100.0 100.0

Table 4.4.6

Table 4.4.7

67

SILL

Memory

Strat Cognitive

Strat Compen-

sation Meta-

cognitive Affective

Strat Social Strat Avg SILL

N Valid 41 41 41 41 41 41 41

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 2.978 3.385 3.583 3.395 2.473 3.466 3.268

Median 2.950a 3.367a 3.618a 3.363a 2.400a 3.700a 3.338a

Mode 2.9b 4.0 3.6 2.9b 1.9b 3.9 3.4

Range 2.4 3.2 2.5 3.3 2.9 3.4 2.5

Minimum 1.7 1.5 2.0 1.6 1.1 1.4 1.8

Maximum 4.1 4.7 4.5 4.9 4.0 4.8 4.3

a. Calculated from grouped data.

b. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown

The qualitative data is in many respects both more interesting to examine and more

difficult to analyze. Answers to the question “What comes to mind when you think about foreign

language learning?” elicited answers such as “verbs and how hard it is to learn without

immersion,” “learning how to speak and pronounce the language,” and “all languages are

connected.”

The question “What comes to mind when you think about the language you are studying”

saw a number of responses themed around “opportunity” and “linguistic differences,” each of

which was mentioned nine times.

The final question “What comes to mind when you think about the countries where this

language is used? The people? The culture?” produced the most wide-ranging responses.

“People are similar throughout the word, but every region has something unique. Such as

Germany’s food.”

“I think about the people that I have met, and the beautiful people that they are, and all

the experiences I have had with them.”

Table 4.4.8

68

“[U]nderstanding the language is the best way to learn about the culture.”

“These countries feel like another world because of the foreign language they speak. The

people remind me of family roots and where I might have come from a hundred years or

so ago. The culture brings to mind that I know little about the world around me and that I

want to experience and see more.”

The 56 open-ended responses of the UWaterloo students who completed Task #1 could

be used to gather information on any number of topics such as cultural awareness, stereotypes or

language learning expectations. However, for the purposes of this research study, analysis of the

responses to the open-ended questions will be limited to the 41 participants who completed both

Task #2 and Task #3. The following chapter will provide the results of the statistical analysis

conducted on the quantitative data gathered and will lay out the qualitative data parameters and

subsequent results of the comparative analysis.

69

5. Analysis

The analysis of the research data is broken into two parts. The first section will examine

the data to answer the two quantitative hypothetical research questions. The second section will

use qualitative data from the open-ended question portion of the Language Biography Survey to

determine if MBTI personality traits and/or frequency of particular learning strategies can be

predicted based on language used in the participant answers.

5.1 Quantitative Research

Single point-in-time surveys were used to gather data, and there was no active

intervention by the researcher to create differences between the participants; therefore, a cross-

sectional design study was employed to test both hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 used only the MBTI

data gathered from the sample population and then compared it to that of the general population

of Canadians who took the English language test. Hypothesis 2 was restricted to analyses using

the MBTI and SILL results from within the sample population. By reason of an unequal MBTI

distribution across the general population, and the small study sample size (n = 41), which makes

it difficult to determine with certainty whether the distribution of the SILL results are symmetric

around their mean, nonparametric statistical tests were conducted to analyze the quantitative data

for both hypotheses.

5.1.1 Hypothesis 1

There is a statistically significant difference between the MBTI personality type

distribution between the general population in English Canada and the sample population

of second language learners enrolled in undergraduate Indo-European language courses at

UWaterloo.

70

The Research Department of Psychometrics Canada Ltd., the authorized Canadian

distributor of the MBTI instrument, published an information document in 2008 which contains

more than twenty years of Canadian MBTI testing results for instruments administered in both

French and English. The sample population used the English language version of the MBTI

Form M assessments. Therefore, when testing for differences between MBTI results between the

general population and the sample population, the Canadian MBTI distribution data results for

tests taken in English was used. Table 5.1.1 summarizes the MBTI distribution of the general

population, the sample population, the expected distribution for the sample based on the general

population distribution, the actual sample population results, and variations between both for

each of the MBTI types.

ENGLISH CANADAab (percent)

SAMPLE (percent)

SAMPLE FREQUENCY PREDICTED

SAMPLE FREQUENCY

ACTUAL

FREQUENCY VARIATION

ACTUAL

FREQUENCY VARIATION

(percent)

Type ISTJ 14.8 14.6 6 6 0 0.0%

ISFJ 6.2 2.4 3 1 -2 4.9%

INFJ 2.8 9.8 1 4 3 7.3%

INTJ 4.4 12.2 2 5 3 7.3%

ISTP 5 2.4 2 1 -1 2.4%

ISFP 3.6 9.8 1 4 3 7.3%

INFP 5.7 9.8 2 4 2 4.9%

INTP 5.7 2.4 2 1 -1 2.4%

ESTP 2.2 0 1 0 -1 2.4%

ESFP 4.9 4.9 2 2 0 0.0%

ENFP 9.6 2.4 4 1 -3 7.3%

ENTP 7.5 4.9 3 2 -1 2.4%

ESTJ 11.4 4.9 5 2 -3 7.3%

ESFJ 6.4 9.8 3 4 1 2.4%

ENFJ 4.1 2.4 2 1 -1 2.4%

ENTJ 5.8 7.3 2 3 1 2.4%

Total 100.1 100 41 41

MBTI DISTRIBUTION – ENGLISH CANADA V SAMPLE

Table 5.1.1

a Taken from Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® and (MBTI®) Instrument in French and English Canada, Psychometrics Canada Research Department Paper, 2008, p. 5

b N = 58,755

71

A visual assessment of Table 5.1.1 suggested that with a variance of 7.3% between the

expected sample frequency and the actual sample frequency of five types, and a variance of 4.5%

between the expected sample frequency and the actual sample frequency of a further two types,

significant differences between the MBTI type distributions in the general population and the

sample population would be found.

A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was conducted to determine whether the 41 participants

recruited to the study had the same distribution of MBTI types as those in the general population.

To analyze data using a chi-square goodness-of-fit test, there are three assumptions to consider.

(1) There is one categorical variable – in this case MBTI type. (2) There is an independence of

observations – in this case each participant can only be placed into one MBTI type. (3) There

must be an expected frequency of at least 5 in each group of the categorical variable – something

which SPSS Statistics can test for. For this study, a visual examination of Table 5.1.1 “expected

frequencies,” already suggests assumption (3) will not be met.

The chi-square goodness-of-fit test will test the Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no

statistically significant difference between the MBTI personality type distribution between the

general population in English Canada and the sample population of second language learners

enrolled in undergraduate Indo-European language courses at UWaterloo. The p-value is the

probability that a statistic as large as the one computed would be found if the null hypothesis

were true (Larson-Hall, 2015, p. 60). For this and all tests in this research, I use a cutoff point of

0.05 to decide whether to reject the null hypothesis.

For the p-value to be accurate the expected frequency in each category should be at least

five. In Table 5.1.2, the chi-square goodness-of-fit test statistics explicitly reports what was

72

visually apparent in Table 5.1.1, that 93.3% of the expected frequencies are less than five. The

minimum expected cell frequency is 1.2.

The chi-square goodness-of-fit test

indicates the sixteen MBTI types were not

similarly distributed in the sample population

as in the general population (𝜒2(14)=25.183,

p=.033). The p-value of 0.033 says that the

probability that we would find a 𝜒2 statistic of

25.183 if there truly were no differences between groups is about 33 in 1,000. Therefore, the null

hypothesis should be rejected which means there is a statistically significant difference between

the MBTI personality type distribution between the general population and the sample

population. However, as noted above, having not met the level expected frequency, the p-value

cannot be assumed accurate.

5.1.2 Hypothesis 2

There is a correlation between personality types as determined by the MBTI

and frequency of use of language learning strategies as defined and categorized by SILL,

Version 5.1.

The Mann-Whitney U test is a rank-based nonparametric test that can be used to

determine if there are differences between two groups on a continuous or ordinal dependent

variable. When the data fails the assumptions of the independent-samples t-test, the Mann-

Whitney U test is a nonparametric alternative that may be used. This can happen if (a) you have

non-normally distributed data; or (b) you have an ordinal dependent variable. Since Likert scales

Chi-Square Goodness-of-Fit Test Statistics

MBTI_Sample

Chi-Square 25.183a

df 14

Asymp. Sig. .033

a. 14 cells (93.3%) have expected frequencies less

than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 1.2.

Table 5.1.2

73

produce ordinal data, the t-test should not be used to analyze this research data (Laerd Statistics,

2015).

The Mann-Whitney U test assumptions are:

(1) There is a dependent variable that is measured at the continuous or ordinal level. For

this test those are the average results of the six language learning strategies and the SILL overall

average broken into the five levels reported as SILL results and called “Key to Understanding

Your Averages” (Oxford, 1990a, p. 291).

Level 1 – scores of 1.0 to 1.4 equivalent to never or almost never used

Level 2 – scores of 1.5 to 2.4 equivalent to general not used

Level 3 – scores of 2.5 to 3.4 equivalent to sometimes used

Level 4 – scores of 3.5 to 4.4 equivalent to generally used

Level 5 – scores of 4.5 to 5.0 always or almost always used

(2) There is an independent variable that consists of two categorical, independent groups,

(i.e., a dichotomous variable) such as an MBTI type scale.

(3) There is an independence of observations.

The dependent variable for the following analysis is the average score for each of the

memory, cognitive, compensation and metacognitive learning strategies. This study was

constructed to examine results within a cognitive learning theory framework; therefore, affective

and social strategies scores will not be tested15. The SILL total average score is a simple average

of all six learning strategy scores, including the affective and social strategies, and therefore will

also not be tested.

15 For results on similar studies which included tests on affective and social strategies, see Wakamoto (2009) and Chen & Hung (2012).

74

The independent variable for the Mann-Whitney U test is the MBTI scale. Based on

Jung’s theory, the perception and judgment functions are conceived of as mental functions and

fit within the cognitive learning framework. Therefore I will be testing results using the Sensing-

iNtuition (SN) perception and Thinking-Feeling (TF) judgment scales.

The Null Hypothesis (H0): The distribution of the dependent variable (memory,

cognitive, compensation and metacognitive average scores) is the same across each category of

the independent variable (SN or TF scale).

When analyzing the data, a visual examination is made of the distributions between the

two groups of the independent variable (“Sensing” and “iNtuition” or “Thinking” and

“Feeling”). Where the distributions of the independent variables are the same for a dependent

variable, the median score for the two groups may be used to determine the size difference

between the two groups. Where the distributions are not similar, the only determination which

can be made is whether values in one group are higher or lower based on the mean rank of the

distribution scores. (See result for cognitive strategy on SN scale below.) Where the distributions

for a dependent variable are not similar, the median report, which forms a portion of the test

results and are included in this analysis, will not include that particular dependent variable.

Tables which summaries the results when SN scale is the independent variable follow on

the next page.

75

A Mann-Whitney U test was run to determine if there were differences in the memory strategy average score between Sensing and iNtuitive. Distributions of the memory strategy average scores for Sensing and iNtuitive were similar, as assessed by visual inspection. Memory strategy average score was not statistically significantly different between Sensing (Mdn = 2.95) and iNtuition (Mdn = 2.90), U = 186, z = -.628, p = .530. Memory strategy average scores were a median of .05 higher in Sensing than in iNtuition. A Mann-Whitney U test was run to determine if there were differences in the cognitive strategy average score between Sensing and iNtuitive. Distributions of the engagement scores for Sensing and iNtuitive were not similar, as assessed by visual inspection. Cognitive strategy scores for Sensing (mean rank = 18.68) and iNtuitive (mean rank = 23.21) were not statistically significantly different, U = 256.5, z = 1.219, p = .223.

Median Report (SN) for Table 5.1.3a Mann-Whitney U Test

Median

SNScale MemoryStrat Compensation Metacognitive

Sensing 2.950 3.600 3.500

iNtuitive 2.900 3.600 3.300

Total 2.900 3.600 3.400

Table 5.1.3a

Table 5.1.3b

76

A Mann-Whitney U test was run to determine if there were differences in the compensation strategy average score between Sensing and iNtuitive. Distributions of the compensation strategy average scores for Sensing and iNtuitive were similar, as assessed by visual inspection. Compensation strategy average score was not statistically significantly different between Sensing (Mdn = 3.60) and iNtuition (Mdn = 3.60), U = 229, z = .498, p = .619. Compensation strategy average scores between the two groups had equal median scores. A Mann-Whitney U test was run to determine if there were differences in the metacognitive strategy average score between Sensing and iNtuitive. Distributions of the metacognitive strategy average scores for Sensing and iNtuitive were similar, as assessed by visual inspection. Metacognitive strategy average score was not statistically significantly different between Sensing (Mdn = 3.50) and iNtuition (Mdn = 3.50), U = 192, z = -.471, p = .638. Metacognitive strategy average scores between the two groups had equal median scores.

The results of the Mann-Whitney U tests indicate there is no statistically significant

difference in the distribution of strategy scores between Sensing types and iNtuitive types. The

Sensing and the iNtuitive type have a similar distribution of scores in their use of LLS.

Results when TF scale is the independent variable:

Table 5.1.4a

77

A Mann-Whitney U test was run to determine if there were differences in the memory strategy average score between Thinking and Feeling. Distributions of the memory strategy average scores for Thinking and Feeling were similar, as assessed by visual inspection. Memory strategy average score was not statistically significantly different between Thinking (Mdn = 2.90) and Feeling (Mdn = 3.00), U = 222.5, z = .327, p = .744. Memory strategy average scores were a median of .10 higher in Feeling than in Thinking. A Mann-Whitney U test was run to determine if there were differences in the cognitive strategy average score between Thinking and Feeling. Distributions of the Cognitive strategy average scores for Thinking and Feeling were similar, as assessed by visual inspection. Cognitive strategy average score was not statistically significantly different between Thinking (Mdn = 3.45) and Feeling (Mdn = 3.40), U = 197.5, z = -3.28, p = .743. Cognitive strategy average scores were a median of .05 higher in Thinking than in Feeling. A Mann-Whitney U test was run to determine if there were differences in the compensation strategy average score between Thinking and Feeling. Distributions of the compensation strategy average scores for Thinking and Feeling were similar, as assessed by visual inspection. Compensation strategy average score was not statistically significantly different between Thinking (Mdn = 3.60) and Feeling (Mdn = 3.60), U = 221.5, z = .301, p = .763. Compensation strategy average scores between the two groups had equal median scores. A Mann-Whitney U test was run to determine if there were differences in the metacognitive strategy average score between Thinking and Feeling. Distributions of the metacognitive strategy average scores for Thinking and Feeling were similar, as assessed by visual inspection. Metacognitive strategy average score was not statistically significantly different between Thinking (Mdn = 3.20) and Feeling (Mdn = 3.40), U = 230, z = .523, p = .601. Metacognitive strategy average scores were a median of .20 higher in Feeling than in Thinking.

The results of the Mann-Whitney U tests indicate there is no statistically significant

difference in the distribution of strategy scores between Thinking types and Feeling types. The

Feeling and the Sensing type have a similar distribution of scores in their use of LLS.

Median Report (TF) for Table 5.1.4a Mann-Whitney U Test

Median TFScale MemoryStrat CognitiveStrat Compensation Metacognitive

Thinking 2.900 3.450 3.600 3.200

Feeling 3.000 3.400 3.600 3.400

Total 2.900 3.400 3.600 3.400

Table 5.1.4b

78

To determine whether using learning strategy averages masked statistically significant

differences to be found in individual statement results, a second round of Mann-Whitney U tests

was conducted using each statement within the memory, cognitive, compensation and

metacognitive strategies as the dependent variable, and both the SN and TF scale as the

independent variable.

The H0 for the next group of tests: The distribution of the dependent variable (a specific

SILL statement from within the memory, cognitive, compensation and metacognitive category of

learning strategies) is the same across each category of the independent variable (SN or TF

scales). There are 15 memory, 25 cognitive, 8 compensation and 15 metacognitive statements,

each run against both the SN and TF scale for a total of 126 tests. There were three instances in

which the H0 was rejected and they are reported here. (The complete Hypothesis Test Summaries

generated are attached as Appendix M. Where the null hypothesis was retained, no visual

examination to determine similar-shaped distribution was made. Without the visual examination

the relevance of median information can not be determined, and no median reports were

generated where the hypothesis test summary retained H0.)

Instance #1)

For H0: The distribution of the dependent variable, memory strategy statement #4, “I

associate the sound of the new word with the sound of a familiar word,” is the same across each

category of the independent variable, TF scale.

79

A Mann-Whitney U test was run to determine if there were differences in Memory

Strategy Statement #4 (“I associate the sound of the new word with the sound of a familiar

word.”) scores between Thinking and Feeling. Distributions of this statement were similar, as

assessed by visual inspection. Memory strategy statement #4 was statistically significantly

different between Thinking (Mdn = 3.50) and Feeling (Mdn = 4.00), U = 219.5, z = .272, p =

.785.

In summary, Feeling types scored consistently higher on this statement than Thinking

types. The median score for Feeling types was 4.0 as compared to 3.5 for Thinking types.

Instance #2)

For H0: The distribution of the dependent variable, cognitive strategy statement #7, “I use

familiar words in different combinations to make new sentences,” is the same across each

category of the independent variable, TF scale.

Median Report for Table 5.1.5a

Median TFScale Memory4

Thinking 3.50

Feeling 4.00

Total 4.00

Table 5.1.5a

Table 5.1.5b

80

A Mann-Whitney U test was run to determine if there were differences in Cognitive

Strategy Statement #7 (“I use familiar words in different combinations to make new sentences.”)

scores between Thinking and Feeling. Distributions of this statement were similar, as assessed by

visual inspection. Cognitive strategy statement #7 was statistically significantly different

between Thinking (Mdn = 3.00) and Feeling (Mdn = 4.00), U = 287.0, z = 2.099, p = .036.

Cognitive strategy statement #7 scores were a median of 1.0 higher in Feeling than in Thinking.

In summary, Feeling types scored consistently higher on this statement than Thinking

types. The median score for Feeling types was 4.0 as compared to 3.0 for Thinking types.

Instance #3)

For H0: The distribution of the dependent variable, metacognitive strategy statement #7,

“I organize my language notebook to record important language information,” is the same across

each category of the independent variable, SN scale.

Median Report for Table 5.1.6a

Median TFScale Cognitive7

Thinking 3.00

Feeling 4.00

Total 3.00

Table 5.1.6a

Table 5.1.6b

81

A Mann-Whitney U test was run to determine if there were differences in Metacognitive

Strategy Statement #7 (“I organize my language notebook to record important language

information”) scores between Sensing and iNtuitive. Distributions of the scores for Sensing and

iNtuitive were not similar, as assessed by visual inspection. Metacognitive strategy statement #7

scores for Sensing (mean rank = 25.18) and iNtuitive (mean rank = 17.02) were statistically

significantly different, U = 126.5, z = -2.278, p = .023.

In summary, Sensing types scored consistently higher on this statement than iNtuitive

types. The mean rank for Sensing types was 25.18 as compared to 17.02 for iNtuitive types.

No significant patterns or trends were identified through this analysis; and with a small

sample size, no further statistical measures were conducted on this data. The significance of the

quantitative research results will be addressed in Chapter 6 – Discussion and Conclusion.

5.2 Qualitative Research

This section of the study will examine whether language used by respondents in the open-

ended biographical language survey is predictive of MBTI type. A search of sentences, phrases

and keywords which correspond to MBTI type themes was conducted across the responses made

by the 41 participants to the first two questions: Q1 – What comes to your mind when you think

about language learning? Q2 – What comes to mind when you think about the language you are

Table 5.1.7

82

studying? Responses from the final question, Q3 – What comes to mind when you think about

the countries where this language is used? The people? The culture? – were not used for these

analyses, as the answers were less related to language learning or language use and therefore less

likely to contain the searched-for learner characteristic cues. The decision not to include the

responses from this question was made in advance of a formal analysis of the data.

The themes used to categorize responses and thus respondents into the Sensing, iNtuitive,

Thinking and Feeling types was determined by the list of Characteristics of Learners by

Psychological Type (see Figure 4 below) as provided by Myers (1988) in the MBTI® Manual.

83

s

Sensing Types iNtuitive Types Concrete experiential style Abstract conceptual learning style Learn in several ways Visual learners Abstract sequential learning style Auditory learners Concrete sequential learning style Concrete random learning style Collaborative learners Participant learners Dependent learners High conceptual level High in fact retention, methodical study, and serialist learning Holistic learners

Field dependent Internal decision makers Left hemisphere learners Field independent Adaptive in creativity Thin boundaries Right hemisphere learners Innovative in creativity Postconventional decision makers High in reflective judgment High in goal orientation High academic self-esteem High in academic comfort Like self-directed learning Thinking Types Feeling Types Abstract conceptual learning style Concrete experiential learning style Abstract sequential learning style Abstract random learning style Participant learners Dependent learners High in fact retention, methodical study, and serialist learning Holistic learners

Systematic decision makers Field dependent Field independent Thin boundaries Left hemisphere learners Right hemisphere learners Adaptive in creativity Adaptive in creativity Seek self-justice in moral orientation

Seek care and self-care in moral orientation

High in goal orientation among adults

High in goal orientation among junior high students

Connected knowers

Figure 4

Taken from MBTI® Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®. (Third) Myers et al, 1988, p. 262.

Characteristics of Learners by Psychological Type

84

From the sample of 41 participants, two respondents did not provide an answer to

Question #1 – What comes to your mind when you think about language learning? or Question

#2 – What comes to your mind when you think about the language you are studying? Sentences,

sentence fragments, phrases or words from the remaining 39 responses were assessed to

determine if they could be grouped into one or more of the four functional types (Sensing,

iNtuition, Thinking or Feeling) based on the learner characteristics listed in Figure 4. Twenty-

five respondents made statements which the gave the researcher a degree of confidence to permit

categorization into one of the four function types. Statements which did not lend themselves to

categorization included, for example, the one-word answer “France” to Q #2. Six of the twenty-

five respondents provided an answer which the researcher determined provided sufficient

information to allow categorization into two of the four function types, that is into each of the SN

and TF scales. A total of 31 blind categorizations were made (i.e., MBTI types were not linked to

the respondent’s answer information before or during the categorization process). Seventeen

participants (55%) were categorized in accordance with MBTI type. Fourteen categorizations

were incorrect. Analytic induction methodology requires the researcher be readily able to

identify those cases in the sample which are deviant (Bloor & Wood, 2006). The results of the

analyses are provided in the tables following Figure 4 with deviant samples highlighted in grey.

Deviant categorizations are reviewed.

85

A total of eleven respondent answers were categorized into the Sensing psychological

type; five were categorized incorrectly. ABA’s answer “German grammatical structures are

different from the other languages and very interesting” and AJI’s answer “grammar, learning

about different cultures” were categorized as Sensing type in accordance with the theme

statement “concrete experiential learning style.” However, AJI’s answer included “learning

ID Code ANSWER TO QUESTION #1 ANSWER TO QUESTION #2

ACTUAL Sensing iNtuitive

ABA German grammatical structures are different from the other languages and very interesting.

N

ACB Structured S

AJI grammar, learning about different cultures N

ANM I think about learning new vocabulary, in spanish, considering I am taking it right now, it is hard to grasp.

N

BGE

The rules of language and how we convey meaning. Word placement and how it differs. I deconstruct the foreign language and see its English counterparts so it helps me better understand English.

French: pointed nasal pronunciation, gendered everything, the rules of the language that I have to follow, the words and phrases I am deeply familiar with and the edges of my knowledge when concerning in depth topics.

S

BIG Slow improvement S

BMK

I think of learning basic phrases which brings back elementary school memories and I think of travelling to locations that use this language.

When learning French, I think of French culture more, Quebec, France, the Canadian government, and French text on Canadian products.

N

BUS structure, interest N

BVT exponential-shaped learning curve S

BYW

As is illustrated above, I quite enjoy learning foreign-languages and consider it my main hobby. I enjoy the challenge that learning a new language brings and take great gratification in making connections between the languages (ex. similarities with romance/latin languages). I believe that it's important to know as many languages as possible, especially now, as the world is becoming increasingly internationalized.

S

CHF Difficult at first and then better with practice S

Table 5.2.1 SENSING TYPE

86

about different cultures” which could have allowed for categorization as iNtuitive with the theme

statement “concrete random learning style.”

ANM’s response “I think about learning new vocabulary, in Spanish, considering I am

taking it right now, it is hard to grasp” was also categorized as Sensing type in accordance with

the theme “concrete experiential learning style,” and rejected from the iNtuitive type because it

did not fit with the “high academic self-esteem” theme. In this instance the researcher used two

cues to mis-categorize ANM.

BMK’s responses “I think of learning basic phrases which brings back elementary school

memories and I think of travelling to locations that use this language” and “When learning

French, I think of French culture more, Quebec, France, the Canadian government, and French

text on Canadian products” were categorized as Sensing type in accordance with the theme

“concrete experiential learning style.” The response to the second question also led BMK to be

categorized in the Sensing type in accordance with the theme “field dependent.”

BUS’s response “structure, interest” was categorized as Sensing type in accordance with

the themes “concrete sequential learning style and “left hemisphere learning.”

87

ID Code ANSWER TO QUESTION #1 ANSWER TO QUESTION #2

ACTUAL Sensing iNtuitive

AED sounds very nice N

AKJ Possibilities N

ALK Verbs and how hard it is to learn without immersion. S

AML Travel and work opportunities N

APO Learning how to speak and pronounce the language. Opportunity in the US N

AQP Opportunity, travel S

ARQ I think of overseas work and living opportunities. S

AUT Switching off my native language of English and submerging myself in foreign language alone.

N

AWV I would love to be able to fluently speak in another language, but usually find it difficult to actually do.

Spanish is totally a new experience for me, as a romance language. I love how it sounds, and I find it very elegant and vibrant.

S

AZY Use it or lose it. Listening tasks are important. Motivation for practice of verbal and written skills can be tricky.

The grammar, the non-direct-translation expressions, and the abundance of dialects and accents

N

BDB It opens up endless possibilities. Learning French will help me to get a better job/gives me more and better job options after I graduate.

S

BEC

Spanish is totally a new experience for me, as a romance language. I love how it sounds, and I find it very elegant and vibrant.

S

CDB Acting skits, listening to taped conversations and cheesy language videos N

CGE

(German): I really like it. The different cases are a bit confusing and declension of adjectives are difficult, but I do enjoy the language a lot. It sounds very clean to me, as German sounds exact. It's very nice.

N

INTUITIVE TYPE Table 5.2.2

88

A total of fourteen respondent answers were categorized into the iNtuitive psychological

type; six were categorized incorrectly. ALK’s response “Verbs and how hard it is to learn

without immersion” was categorized as iNtuitive in accordance with the theme statement

“concrete random learning style” and “right hemisphere learner.”

AQP’s response “Opportunity, travel,” ARQ’s response “I think of overseas work and

living opportunity” and both of BDB’s responses “It opens up endless possibilities” and

“learning French will help me get a better job/gives me more and better job options are I

graduate” were categorized as iNtuitive in accordance with the theme statement “high in goal

orientation.”

AWV’s responses “I would love to be able to fluently speak in another language, but

usually find it difficult to actually do” and “Spanish is totally a new experience for me, as a

romance language. I love how it sounds, and I find it very elegant and vibrant” were categorized

as iNtuitive in accordance with the theme “right hemisphere learner.” The response to Q2 was

also categorized in the iNtuitive category in accordance with the theme “auditory learner.”

BEC’s response “Spanish is totally a new experience for me, as a romance language. I

love how it sounds, and I find it very elegant and vibrant” was categorized as iNtuitive in

accordance with the theme statements “auditory learner” and “right hemisphere learners.”

89

A total of five respondent answers were categorized into the Thinking psychological

type; two were categorized incorrectly. Both ARQ’s answer, “When I think of foreign-language

learning, I think of an expanded audience for communication” and BDB’s answer “It opens up

endless possibilities” were categorized as Thinking in accordance with the theme statement “high

in goal orientation among adults.”

One respondent answer was categorized into the Feeling psychological type and it was

done so incorrectly. ALK’s answer, “Verbs and how hard it is to learn without immersion” was

categorized as Feeling in accordance with the theme statement “abstract random learning style.”

The following chapter will examine in more detail what may be concluded from the

results presented above.

ID Code ANSWER TO QUESTION #1 ANSWER TO QUESTION #2

ACTUAL Thinking Feeling

AKJ Learning a new culture and how to communicate with the people from that culture in their own native language.

T

ARQ When I think of foreign-language learning, I think of an expanded audience for communication.

F

BDB It opens up endless possibilities. F

BIG Difficulty, opportunities to visit other countries T

BVT French, opening new doors T

ID Code ANSWER TO QUESTION #1 ANSWER TO QUESTION #2

ACTUAL Thinking Feeling

ALK Verbs and how hard it is to learn without immersion. T

Table 5.2.4

THINKING TYPE Table 5.2.3

FEELING TYPE

90

6. Discussion and Conclusion

This study was designed to determine whether there is a connection between personality

type and second language learning, specifically the reported use of learning strategies. The

research was designed to test three possible connection points between personality type and

second language learning using both quantitative and qualitative methods to gather and analyze

the data.

6.1 The Instruments

Participants were asked to complete three surveys. The first was a biographical and

qualitative data-gathering instrument, designed to provide the researcher with background

information on the respondents and elicit subjective comments with respect to second language

learning expectations and the thoughts that language elicits in regards to its use. The quantitative

portion of this study used two well-established and well-researched questionnaires, the MBTI

and the SILL. I would be remiss if I did not heed the comments of Capraro and Capraro (2002),

quoted earlier in this thesis, and discuss the reliability and validity of both quantitative data

gathering instruments used. I am neither a statistician nor a specialist in psychometrics by

training and thus not in a position to conduct validity or reliability tests on the specific results the

surveys generated for this research. Therefore, I am limited to reporting that with respect to the

MBTI, Cronbach’s alpha was computed for a US national sample of 2,859 for which reliability

coefficients averaging EI = .91, SN = .92, TF = .91, and JP = .92 were recorded (Myers et al.,

1998, p. 161). For the SILL, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .94 for the whole questionnaire,

with individual categories results computed as memory strategies = .75, cognitive strategies =

.84, compensation strategies =.69, metacognitive strategies = .86, affective strategies = .68 and

social strategies = .78 (Hsiao & Oxford, 2002, p. 373). An 𝛼 ≥ 0.9 is considered excellent.

91

Cronbach’s alpha is used to determine how much the items of a scale are measuring the same

underlying dimension, and commonly used when a survey includes Likert-scale questions

commonly used to determine the reliability of a scale when a survey uses Likert questions (Laerd

Statistics, 2015).

The validity and reliability data are focused on the instruments themselves and are

statistical measures used to determine whether the instruments adequately measure what they are

designed to test, and whether the results are repeatable. Validity and reliability, however, do not

address the assumptions which underlie either of these instruments.

The subtitle of Oxford’s (1990) text which introduced the SILL is What Every Teacher

Should Know. The text and the SILL focus on skills acquired in a more formal, classroom-type

learning environment, and the majority of the SILL statements are more in line with tasks

associated with formalized instruction (e.g., “I review often.” “I arrange my schedule to study

and practice the new language consistently, not just when there is the pressure of a test.” “I work

with other language learners to practice, review, or share information.”) rather than with

immersion or considering holistic global language acquisition experiences (e.g., “I read for

pleasure in the new language.”) Given these prompts, there is a good probability that when

assessing and responding to SILL statements, learners are more likely to rank their responses

based on instructional contexts – what they do in the classroom, how they approach homework

or online tasks.

Instruments, such as the SILL may also be subject to self-report biases such as social

desirability and recall bias. Social desirability is an external bias in which the respondent may be

looking for approval from the questionnaire giver or attempting to generated anticipated results

or results that are in line with test takers. This type of bias may be exacerbated in situations

92

where anonymity is not guaranteed. Recall bias occurs where a respondent is unable to

accurately recall a past event or the number of times they do something over a given period of

time (Althubaiti, 2016). Without fleshing out research data with observational data or deeper

questioning and conversation around an individual’s strategy use in a particular situation, self-

report questionnaire data may reflect the respondent’s self-view rather than actual behaviour

(Kaushal and Petwardhan, 2018, p. 12).

As learners progress through formal training programs, the use of certain strategies may

be used with such frequency and facility that their use becomes almost invisible and difficult for

the learner to track. In other instances, the learner’s language proficiency has increased to such

an extent that certain strategies are no longer used on a frequent basis. Both scenarios may result

in lower scores in certain categories and suggest that learners are not using strategies well. SILL

results are a snapshot in time and do not take into consideration the dynamic nature of language

learning over time or contextual differences in learning conditions.

In this research study, participants were asked to complete the SILL without any prior

information provided regarding language learning, learning strategies in general or specific

language learning strategies. In the preface to Language Learning Strategies, Oxford writes,

“Although learning strategies are used by students themselves, teachers play an important role in

helping students develop and use strategies in more effective ways” (1990, p. ix). The book was

written to provide a model to instructors for strategy training and the SILL was developed as the

self-assessment tool for assessing L2 learning strategies. Oxford’s premise is that strategies can

and should be taught to improve students’ language learning capabilities. To lower or mitigate

the level of potential self-report biases, subjective rating levels on the Likert scale and the

possible misinterpretation of results, future similar studies should consider providing respondents

93

with general information regarding learning strategies, how language learning strategies can be

seen as a component of language learning, the underlying assumptions built into the SILL

statements, how the scores may change over time, and guidelines regarding how to report

frequency of use prior to giving the SILL.

The MBTI limits respondents to being sorted into one of sixteen discreet categories based

on four dichotomous poles. According to type theory, individuals grouped into a particular type

will share their desire for either the external or internal world, the ways in which they prefer to

gather and process information and their orientation to the external world. However, sixteen

groups cannot adequately reflect the many nuanced ways in which individuals who share certain

characteristics may differ from each other. As type theory works on the assumption that an

individual’s type does not change, the instrument does not take into account the contextual

situation in which a respondent finds themselves at the time of taking the assessment, their life

experiences, their experience with taking such tests, or other factors.

In anticipation of conducting quantitative research, a minimum sample size of 165

participants was the goal, and the expectation of being able to work with a larger sample size is

reflected in the research design. Unfortunately, both participant recruitment drives were

truncated resulting in a small sample size which reduced the effectiveness of the quantitative

study results. Neither a solid research question nor study design for the qualitative data collected

was properly considered which meant only a minimal amount of data was collected from which

to work.

In developing future studies, where a sufficiently large sample size to conduct a robust

quantitative analysis is not possible, collecting additional qualitative data should be considered.

94

In particular, to counter the effect of self-report biases, in-depth follow-up interviews regarding

strategy usage could prove useful.

6.2 Hypothesis One: Conclusions and reflections for future similar studies

The first analysis of the data was designed to test the hypothesis that certain personality

types would be more attracted to engaging in adult second language learning courses. To answer

this question, the sample population distribution was compared to the results of over 50,000

Canadian individuals in the general population who took the English language MBTI test. Had

the sample skewed higher or lower in one or two types, this may have indicated a particular type

tended to have a preference or an aversion to engaging in second language learning.

Demonstrating a statistically significant result of non-correlation between sample and general

population would warrant additional statistical analysis of the data to determine the size of the

effect of the finding.

The unequal distribution of the general population MBTI results called for the use of non-

parametric statistical analysis (Jamieson, 2004; Larson-Hall, 2015; and Lindstromberg, 2016),

and the chi-square goodness-of-fit test was applied to distribution results of the sample to

determine the level of correlation to the general population. The chi-square goodness-of-fit test

requires a minimum frequency of five for each category. With a sample size of n=41, this

criterion was not met, and the results of the test, which showed little correlation between sample

and general population, were not meaningful. The MBTI distribution of type for the defined

general population ranges between 2.2% and 14.8%. To avoid similar issues in future studies and

to generate the required expected frequency of ≥ 5 in each category suggests a minimum sample

size of 240 is required.

95

During the initial data collection, one of the potential recruits remarked he was taking the

language course in order to fulfill an Arts credit requirement to complete his STEM study

degree. Going forward, should a study similar to this be undertaken in a university setting, I

would recommend:

(a) When gathering the biographical data include a question which asks if the respondent

is taking a language course to meet non-second language degree requirements.

(b) Focus on recruiting participants from second year and higher courses in order to

control for students who may not become actively engaged in second language

learning.

(c) Recruit among the second language graduate student population as they have actively

engaged in second language studies for a number of years.

(d) To maximize participant numbers, to remain true to the cross-sectional design

methodology, and to optimize the number of potential recruits in second year

language courses, recruit twice during the calendar year rather than the academic year

(i.e., once during the Winter or Spring term and again in the following Fall term).

6.3 Hypothesis Two: Conclusions and reflections for future similar studies

The second possible connection point between personality type and second language to

be tested was designed to examine whether a correlation between personality type and language

learning skills could be demonstrated. This test involved the use of both instruments. In this

instance, it was the SILLs use of Likert-scale measures which necessitated the use of non-

parametric statistical analysis (Gu, 2016; Jamieson, 2004; Larson-Hall, 2015; and

Lindstromberg, 2016).

96

Mann-Whitney U tests, which look for differences in the distribution of two groups, were

conducted using the four learning strategies which are cognitive in nature (memory, cognitive,

compensation and metacognitive) as the dependent variables, and the two MBTI cognitive

functional type scales as the independent variable. The results were all negative. No correlations

were found in any of the eight possible combinations of the dependent and independent

variables. This means there is no personality type group which uses one category of strategy with

measurably greater consistency than the personality type on the opposite end of the dichotomy

scale being tested (e.g., Thinking types did not consistently report higher usage of one category

of LLS than Feeling types.)

To determine whether using learning strategy averages masked correlations which might

be found when examining individual LLS, a second round of Mann-Whitney U tests was

conducted which used each statement as a dependent variable on each of the two functional type

MBTI scales (SN and TF). In three instances out of a possible 128 the test decision was to reject

the null hypothesis. This means that in those three cases, there was a statistically measurable

difference in the frequency of use of a particular LLS by one type on the scale over the other

(e.g., Feeling types consistently reported that they more often used familiar words in different

combinations to make new sentences than the Thinking types.) In the two cases where the

rejection of the null hypothesis could be made based on differences in the median, which is a

stronger test result, the independent variable was the TF scale, and Feeling had the higher

median. This is inconsistent with the Ehrman & Oxford study (1990), in which the Feeling

learners mentioned the fewest specific strategies, and where they did, it was around concern for

social and interpersonal issues. In this study the correlation was found in one memory strategy,

97

“I associate the sound of the new word with the sound of a familiar word,” and one cognitive

strategy, “I use familiar words in different combinations to make new sentences.”

The correlated finding on the SN scale occurred on the metacognitive statement, “I

organize my language notebook to record important language information.” In this instance,

because distribution scores were not similar, a difference in median could not be calculated. The

mean rank was significantly different, showing a Sensing mean rank of 25.18 compared to an

iNtuitive mean rank of 17.02. While advocating for the use of parametric statistics when

conducting analyses using the SILL or other instruments which collect ordinal data, Mizumoto &

Takeuchi (2018) also caution against their use if the data is not normally distributed. Given

sample size and the cautions against using arithmetic or parametric statistics on non-normal

distribution of data, no further analysis of these results were made.

The results obtained while attempting to find correlations between type and LLS, rather

than indicating a trend, are anomalous, and no additional tests were conducted. I had anticipated

finding that certain strategies would be used either consistently higher or lower based on type.

For example, Question 30 “I seek specific details in what I hear or read” and Question 39 “I look

for patterns in the new language” both appear to be statements which may be considered to lie on

the perceiving, information gathering dichotomy designated as SN (Sensing and iNtuition). The

first statement, based on type theory, would be expected to be more likely to be associated with

someone on the Sensing side of the pole, the latter on the iNtuition side of the pole. Given the

lack of a significant sample size which hindered the analysis of data, it is impossible to conclude

with any reasonable level of certainty whether this lack of statement correlation to type is

meaningful. Quantitative data studies are best suited to large groups of individuals and lends

itself well to the manipulation of numerous variables simultaneously. Researchers with greater

98

statistical acumen may have other ways in which to extract meaning from this data. Going

forward, conducting such studies jointly with a statistician would likely facilitate more

meaningful results.

6.4 Hypothesis Three: Conclusions and reflections for future similar studies

The qualitative analysis section of the thesis began by searching the open-ended

responses to the initial survey in an attempt to answer the question of whether type could be

predicated based on language used by respondents. The analysis was made with some success.

However, analytic induction methodology requires the researcher to look for falsifying evidence

and then to modify the theoretical conclusion in light of the evidence (Bloor & Wood, 2006). In

this instance, sample size is not an issue; however, the initial survey was not designed with this

type of analysis in mind, and a sufficiently large writing sample from each respondent was not

obtained to be able to properly assess the data initially nor address deficiencies in the results.

For future studies, asking respondents to describe their own learning process, (e.g.,

Which language learning tasks do you enjoy? What are the steps you take when asked to write a

paragraph in the language you are learning? Are there classroom activities you would prefer to

skip if you could?), rather than the more general “What comes to your mind when you think

about language learning?” may elicit responses which allow better categorization when using the

Characteristics of Learners by Psychological Type (Figure 4). By narrowing the questions, the

responses may provide better clues which allow the researcher to tease out whether the

respondent is a, for example, collaborative, visual, left hemisphere or holistic learner, and may

find greater success in categories respondents into type. There is a high probability that many

participants in this or similar future studies will not have specifically studied how learning takes

place, nor will they be aware of their own learning styles. Asking a respondent “Do you consider

99

yourself a concrete sequential or abstract conceptual learner?” and supply a brief definition of

each would likely introduce issues of self-report biases into the responses.

6.5 Applications for Classroom Use and Curricula Development

Both the MBTI and the SILL are tools which can be used by educators when they

consider how learners gather and process information. Instructing learners on the various types

of strategies which can be used, particularly in a broad sense, (cognitive, memory, etc.) and then

providing examples of each through the SILL statements may encourage students to expand their

strategy use. It also gives learners an understanding that others may learn differently (not

necessarily better or worse).

Even with a limit of sixteen categories, the MBTI, when introduced formally into a

classroom setting, provides learners with a common framework and vocabulary to discuss their

own preferences, and to understand how a classmate may approach an assignment in a different

way. The MBTI takes a value-neutral approach to personality type, that is preferences are neither

regarded as good or bad (Hayes, 2017; Myers et al., 1998). Therefore, type can be a non-

confrontational tool to open up dialogue within a group or classroom around preference which

may allow a learner to feel more comfortable in articulating their needs and permitting them to

listen to the needs of others with less judgment.

In the conclusion to their 2002 study in which the MBTI was given to 116 students taking

the introductory chemical engineering course at North Carolina State University, Felder et al.,

note that the MBTI does not provide a complete picture of a student’s learning style model nor

will it predict their success or failure in a particular course but it may offer useful clues with

respect to compatibility between their learning style and the instructor’s teaching style. However,

“The goal is … not to determine students’ learning styles and teach each student exclusively in

100

the manner that either he or she prefers. It is rather to “teach around the cycle,” making sure that

every style is addressed to some extent in the instruction” (p. 14). I would anticipate that where

instructors work to include activities and instruction that lean into the strengths of the each of the

dichotomous poles would be reflected in better results in student perception surveys.

The idea of “teaching around the cycle” should not be limited to classroom instruction.

Hwu’s (2007) study used the computer’s tracking capability to record learners’ behaviours with a

grammar application and found that Sensing and iNtuitive students differed in how they

preferred to receive and assimilate new information. While these different learning behaviours

were not related to knowledge gains, a future study looking for correlation between student

perception of online course effectiveness and type may yield valuable information for online

course construction.

101

7. References Allport, G. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. Holt.

Amerstorfer, C. M. (2018). Past its expiry date? The SILL in modern mixed-methods strategy

research. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 497–623.

https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.14

An, X., & Yung, Y.-F. (2014). Item response theory: What it is and how you can use the IRT

procedure to apply it. SAS Institute Inc.

https://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings14/SAS364-2014.pdf

Anderson, N. (2020, May 21). University of California takes huge step toward dropping SAT

and ACT from admissions. The Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/05/21/sats-university-california-

system/

Ardasheva, Y., & Tretter, T. R. (2013). Strategy inventory for language learning—ELL student

form: Testing for factorial validity. Modern Language Journal, 97(2), 474–489.

Althubaiti, A. (2016). Information bias in health research: Definition, pitfalls, and adjustment

methods. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 9(1), 211–217.

https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S104807

Ayadi, O. F., Chatterjee, A., & Woldie, M. (2006). Matching testing strategy with student

personality in a historically black university. Journal of College Teaching and Learning,

3(3), 87–93. https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v3i3.1739

Bell, M. A., Wales, P. S., Torbeck, L. J., Kunzer, J. M., Thurston, V. C., & Brokaw, J. J. (2011).

Do personality differences between teachers and learners impact students’ evaluations of

102

a surgery clerkship? Journal of Surgical Education, 68(3), 190–193.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2011.01.003

Beyler, J., & Schmeck, R. R. (1992). Assessment of individual differences in preferences for

holistic-analytic strategies: Evaluation of some commonly available instruments.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(3), 709–719.

Bloor, M., & Wood, F. (2006). Keywords in Qualitative Methods (Online). SAGE Publications,

Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209403

Blutner, R., & Hochnadel, E. (2010). Two qubits for C.G. Jung’s theory of personality. Cognitive

Systems Research, 11(3), 243–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2009.12.002

Boerner, R. J. (2015). Temperament: Theorie, Forschung, Klinik. Springer-Verlag.

Boyle, G. J., Matthews, G., & Saklofske, D. H. (2008). Personality theories and models: An

overview. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook

of Personality Theory and Assessment (Vol. 1, pp. 1–29). SAGE Publications Inc.

Boyle, G. J., Stankov, L., Martin, N. G., Petrides, K. V., Eysenck, M. W., & Ortet, G. (2016).

Hans J. Eysenck and Raymond B. Cattell on intelligence and personality. Personality and

Individual Differences, 103, 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.029

Byram, M., Holmes, P., & Savvides, N. (2013). Intercultural communicative competence in

foreign language education: Questions of theory, practice and research. The Language

Learning Journal, 41(3), 251–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.836343

Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2002). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator score reliability across

studies: A meta-analytic reliability generalization study. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 62(4), 590–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164402062004004

103

Carrell, P. L., Prince, M. S., & Astika, G. G. (1996). Personality types and language learning in

an EFL context. Language Learning, 46(1), 75–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

1770.1996.tb00641.x

Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). An overview of language teaching methods and approaches. In M.

Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a Second or

Foreign Language (4th ed., pp. 2–14). Heinle & Heinle.

Celik, H. (2015). Review of research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide.

Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 113–115.

https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.460608

Cervone, D., & Caprara, G. V. (2001). Personality assessment. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes

(Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Online, pp.

11281–11287). Elsevier Ltd.

Chapelle, C. A. (2009). Language acquisition theory and computer-assisted language learning.

The Modern Language Journal, 93(s1), 741–753. https://doi.org/doi-

org.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00970.x

Chen, M.-L., & Hung, L.-M. (2012). Personality type, perceptual style preferences, and

strategies for learning English as a foreign language. Social Behavior and Personality,

40(9), 1501–1510. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2012.40.9.1501

Cognition. (2017). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

www.britannica.com/topic/cognition-thought-process

Cohen, A. D. (2003). The learners side of foreign language learning: Where do styles, strategies,

and tasks meet? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,

41(4), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2003.013

104

Dansereau, D. F. (1985). Learning strategy research. In J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, & R. Glaser

(Eds.), Thinking and learning skills. (pp. 209–240). Erlbaum.

Datan, N., Rodeheaver, D., & Hughes, F. (1987). Adult development and aging. Annual Review

of Psychology, 38(1), 153–180. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.38.020187.001101

De Bot, K. (2008). Introduction: Second language development as a dynamic process. The

Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-

4781.2008.00712.x

Dmitrenko, V. (2017). Language learning strategies of multilingual adults learning additional

languages. International Journal of Multilingualism, 14(1), 6–22.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2017.1258978

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). Personality, temperament, and mood. In The Psychology of the Language

Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 10–30). Erlbaum.

Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. J.

Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 589–

630). Blackwell.

Drummond, R. J., & Stoddard, A. H. (1992). Learning style and personality type. Perceptual and

Motor Skills, 75(4), 99–104.

Ehrman, M. (1990). Owls and doves: Cognition, personality, and learning success. In J. E. Alatis

(Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1990 (pp. 413–

437). Georgetown University Press.

Ehrman, M. E., Leaver, B. L., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). A brief overview of individual differences

in second language learning. System, 31, 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-

251X(03)00045-9

105

Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive

training setting. The Modern Language Journal, 74(3), 311–327.

https://doi.org/www.jstor.org/stable/327627

Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. L. (1988). Effects of sex differences, career choice and psychological

type on adult language learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 253–

265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1988.tb05302.x

Emami, M. R., Bazzocchi, M. C. F., & Hakima, H. (2019). Engineering design pedagogy: A

performance analysis. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1–33.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09515-7

Fazeli, S. H. (2011). The exploring nature of language learning strategies (LLSs) and their

relationship with various variables with focus on personality traits in the current studies

of second/foreign language learning. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(10),

1311–1320. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.1.10.1311-1320

Felder, R. M., Felder, G. N., & Dietz, E. J. (2002). The effects of personality type on engineering

student performance and attitudes. Journal of Engineering Education, 91(1), 3–17.

https://doi.org/doi-org.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2002.tb00667.x

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts

in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300.

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1998). SLA property: No trespassing! The Modern Language Journal,

82(1), 91–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb02598.x

Fleeson, W., & Jayawickreme, E. (2015). Whole trait theory. Journal of Research in Personality,

56, 82–92. https://doi.org/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.10.009

106

Furnham, A. (1996). The big five versus the big four: The relationship between the Myers-

Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and NEO-PI five factor model of personality. Personality

and Individual Differences, 21(2), 303–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-

8869(96)00033-5

Furnham, A., Moutafi, J., & Crump, J. (2003). The relationship between the revised Neo-

Personality Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Social Behavior and

Personality, 31(6), 577–584. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2003.31.6.577

García-Carbonell, A., Rising, B., Montero, B., & Watts, F. (2001). Simulation/gaming and the

acquisition of communicative competence in another language. Simulation & Gaming,

32(4), 481–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/104687810103200405

Gass, S. M. (1998). Apples and Oranges: Or, why apples are not orange and don’t need to be a

response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal, 82(1), 83–90.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb02597.x

Gass, S. M. (1993). Second language acquisition: Past, present and future. Second Language

Research, 9(2), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839300900202

Griffiths, C., & Oxford, R. L. (2014). The twenty-first century landscape of language learning

strategies: Introduction to this special issue. System, 43(1), 1–10.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.009

Griffiths, C., & Parr, J. M. (2001). Language-learning strategies: Theory and perception. ELT

Journal, 55(3), 247–254. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/10.1093/elt/55.3.247

Gronlund, N. E., & Linn, R. L. (1990). Measurement and evaluation in teaching (6th ed.).

Macmillan.

107

Gu, P. Y. (2016). Questionnaires in language teaching research. Language Teaching Research,

20(5), 567–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816664001

Gu, Y., Wen, Q., & Gu, D. (1995). How often is often? Reference ambiguities of the Likert-scale

in language learning strategy research. Occasional Papers in English Language

Teaching, 5, ELT Unit, Chinese University of Hong Kong, 19–25.

Habók, A., & Magyar, A. (2018). Validation of a self-regulated foreign language learning

strategy questionnaire through multidimensional modelling. Frontiers in Psychology,

9(1388). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01388

Hall, J. K. (1997). A consideration of SLA as a theory of practice: A response to Firth and

Wagner. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 301–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-

4781.1997.tb05482.x

Hayes, Jeff. (2017 July 17) Why the Myers-Briggs assessment is meaningful to millions. CPP

Inc. http://www.cppblogcentral.com/cpp-connect/why-the-myers-briggs-assessment-is-

meaningful-to-millions/

Halliday, M. A. K. (1979). Modes of meaning and modes of expression: Types of grammatical

structure and their determination by different semantic functions. In D. Allerton, E.

Carney, & D. Hollcroft (Eds.), Functions and context in linguistic analysis: A Festschrift

for William Haas (pp. 57–79). Cambridge University Press.

Holzman, P. S. (2020). Personality. In Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

www.britannica.com/topic/personality

Hsiao, T.-Y., & Oxford, R. L. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning strategies: A

confirmatory factor analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 86(3), 368–383.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00155

108

Huang, S. C. (2018). Language learning strategies in context. The Language Learning Journal,

46(5), 647–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1186723

Hwang, M., & Lee, H.-K. (2019). Development and validation of a self-regulated language

learning inventory. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28(6), 543–562.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00454-4

Hwu, F. (2007). Learners’ strategies with a grammar application: The influence of language

ability and personality preferences. European Association for Computer Assisted

Language Learning, 19(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344007000316

Hymes, D. (1979). On communicative competence. In C. J. Brumfit & K. Johnson (Eds.), The

communicative approach to language teaching (pp. 5–26). Oxford University Press.

Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert Scales: How to (ab)use them. Medical Education, 38(12), 1217–

1218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02012.x

Jones, L. V., & Thissen, D. (2007). A history and overview of psychometrics. Handbook of

Statistics, 26, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7161(06)26001-2

Jung, C. G. (1921a). Psychological types (H. Read, M. Fordham, G. Adler, & W. McGuire, Eds.;

H. G. Baynes & R. F. C. Hull, Trans.; Vol. 6). Princeton University Press.

www.jungiananalysts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/C.-G.-Jung-Collected-Works-

Volume-6_-Psychological-Types.pdf

Jung, C. G. (1921b). Psychologische Typen. Rascher & Cie., Verlag.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/61543/61543-h/61543-h.htm#A_Einleitung

Kasper, G. (1997). “A” stands for acquisition: A response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern

Language Journal, 31(3), 307–312.

109

Kaushal, V., & Patwardhan, M. (2018). Emerging trends in personality identification using

online social networks—A literature survey. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery

from Data, 12(2), 1–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3070645

Kay, D., & Kibble, J. (2016). Learning theories 101: Application to everyday teaching and

scholarship. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(1), 17–25.

https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00132.2015

Kim, M.-R., & Han, S.-J. (2014). Relationships between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

Personality Profiling, Academic Performance and Student Satisfaction in Nursing

Students. International Journal of Bio-Science and Bio-Technology, 6(6), 1–12.

https://doi.org/dx.doi.org/10.14257/ijbsbt.2014.6.6.01

Krabbe, P. F. M. (2017a). Chapter 6—Health status measurement. In P. F. M. Krabbe (Ed.), The

measurement of health and health status (pp. 91–111). Elsevier Inc.

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801504-9.00006-4

Krabbe, P. F. M. (2017b). Chapter 10—Item response theory. In P. F. M. Krabbe (Ed.), The

measurement of health and health status (p. xix). Elsevier Inc.

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801504-9.04001-0

Kramsch, C. (2000). Second language acquisition, applied linguistics, and the teaching of foreign

languages. The Modern Language Journal, 84(3), 311–326.

Kramsch, C. (2002). Standard, norm, and variability in language learning. In S. M. Gass, K.

Bardovi-Harlig, S. S. Magnan, & J. Walz (Eds.), Pedagogical norms for second and

foreign language learning and teaching. Benjamins.

Laerd Statistics. (2015). Mann-Whitney U test using SPSS statistics. Statistical Tutorials and

Software Guides. https://statistics.laerd.com

110

Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford University

Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied

Linguistics, 18(2), 141–165. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.2.141

Larson-Hall, J. (2015). A Guide to Doing Statistics in Second Language Research using SPSS

and R (Second). Routledge.

Lawrence, G. (1984). A synthesis of learning style research involving the MBTI. Journal of

Psychological Type, 8, 2–15.

Liddicoat, A. (1997). Interaction, social structure, and second language use: A response to Firth

and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 313–317.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05485.x

Lindstromberg, S. (2016). Inferential statistics in Language Teaching Research: A review and

ways forward. Language Teaching Research, 20(6), 741–768.

https://doi.org/0.1177/1362168816649979

Long, M. H. (1990). The least a second language acquisition theory needs to explain. Teachers of

English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc., 24(4), 649–666.

https://doi.org/www.jstor.org/stable/3587113

Long, M. H. (1997). Construct validity in SLA research: A response to Firth and Wagner. The

Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 318–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-

4781.1997.tb05487.x

Lundgren, H., Kroon, B., & Poell, R. F. (2017). Personality testing and workplace training:

Exploring stakeholders, products and purpose in Western Europe. European Journal of

Training and Development, 41(3), 198–221. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-03-2016-0015

111

MacDonald, D. A., Anderson, P. E., Tsagarakis, C. I., & Holland, C. J. (1994). Examination of

the relationship between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the NEO Personality

Inventory. Psychological Reports, 74(1), 339–344.

https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1994.74.1.339

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (Eds.). (2012). Research methods in second language acquisition.

Wiley-Blackwell.

Matthews, G. (2008). Personality and information processing: A cognitive-adaptive theory. In G.

J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality

theory and assessment: Vols. 1. Personality theories and models (pp. 56–79). Sage.

Matthews, G. (2018). Cognitive-adaptive trait theory: A shift in perspective on personality.

Journal of Personality, 86(1), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.111/jopy.12319

Mayer, J. D. (1998). A systems framework for the field of personality. Psychological Inquiry,

9(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/www.jstor.org/stable/1449106

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator from the

perspective of the Five‐Factor Model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57(1), 17–

40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00759.x

McLaughlin, B. (1978). Second-language acquisition in childhood. Erlbaum.

McLeod, S. A. (2017). Theories of personality. Simply Psychology.

www.simplypsychology.org/personality-theories.html

Miao, R. (2015). Second language acquisition: An introduction. In J. D. Wright (Ed.),

International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Second Edition, pp. 360–

367). Elsevier Science Ltd. doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.92096-8

112

Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2018). Modelling a prototypical use of language learning

strategies: Decision tree-based methods in multiple contexts. In R. L. Oxford & C. M.

Amerstorfer (Eds.), Language learning strategies and individual learner characteristics:

Situating strategy use in diverse contexts (pp. 99–122).

Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI® Manual: A

guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® Instrument

(Third). CPP, Inc.

O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition.

Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R. L. (1990a). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Heinle,

Cengage Learning.

Oxford, R. L. (1990b). Missing link: Evidence from research on language learning styles and

strategies. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and

Linguistics 1990 (pp. 438–458). Georgetown University Press.

Oxford, R. L. (1993). The role of the language learner. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13,

175–187. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500002452

Oxford, R. L. (2003a). Language learning styles and strategies: An overview. GALA, 1–25.

http://web.ntpu.edu.tw/~language/workshop/read2.pdf

Oxford, R. L. (2003b). Language learning styles and strategies: Concepts and relationships.

International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41(4), 271–278.

https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2003.012

113

Pittenger, D. J. (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57(3), 210–221.

https://doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.57.3.210

Poulisse, N. (1997). Some words in defense of the psycholinguistic approach: A response to

Firth and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 324–328.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05489.x

Psaltou-Joycey, A., & Kantaridou, Z. (2011). Major, minor, and negative learning style

preferences of university students. System, 39(1), 103–112.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.01.008

Psychometrics Canada. (2008). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® and (MBTI®) Instrument in

French and English Canada. https://www.psychometrics.com/wp-

content/uploads/2015/02/mbti-in-canada.pdf

Quenk, N. L. (1993). Personality types or personality traits: What difference does it make.

Bulletin of Psychological Type, 16(2), 9–13.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1867/e9e20c94ac37d69ee3ee7f0cc2c2b38e91cc.pdf

Ramsay, J. O. (2001). Psychometrics. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral

Sciences (Online, pp. 12416–12422). Elsevier Ltd.

Rampton, B. (1997). Second language research in late modernity: A response to Firth and

Wagner. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 329–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-

4781.1997.tb05491.x

Rose, H., Briggs, J. G., Boggs, J. A., Sergio, L., & Ivanova-Slavianskaia, N. (2018). A

systematic review of language learner strategy research in the face of self-regulation.

System, 72, 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.12.002

114

Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41–51.

Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,

II(2), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/II.2.117

Rümelin, G. (1890). Über die Temperamente. Deutsche Rundschau, 64, 397–412.

Šafranj, J., & Gojkov-Rajić, A. (2019). The role of personality traits in the choice and use of

language learning strategies. Društvena Istraživanja, 28(4), 691–709.

https://doi.org/10.5559/di.28.4.07

Salter, D. W., Forney, D. S., & Evans, N. J. (2005). Two approaches to examining the stability of

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator scores. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and

Development, 37(4), 208–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2005.11909761

Schulz, R. A. (1991). Second language acquisition theories and teaching practice: How do they

fit? The Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/doi-

org.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb01078.x

Seker, M. (2016). Scenario-based instruction design as a tool to promote self-regulated language

learning strategies. SAGE Open, 6(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016684175

Sharp, A. (2008). Personality and second language learning. Asian Social Science, 4(11), 17–25.

Shaw, M. E., & Costanzo, P. R. (1982). Theories of social psychology. McGraw Hill.

Steele, A. L., & Young, S. (2008). A comparison of music education and music therapy majors:

Personality types as described by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and demographic

profiles. Journal of Music Therapy, 45(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/45.1.2

Steele, A. L., & Young, S. (2011). A descriptive study of Myers-Briggs Personality Types of

professional music educators and music therapists with comparisons to undergraduate

majors. Journal of Music Therapy, 48(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/48.1.55

115

Stein, R., & Swan, A. B. (2019). Evaluating the validity of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator theory:

A teaching tool and window into intuitive psychology. Social and Personality

Psychology Compass, 13(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12434

Sun, R., & Mathews, R. C. (2012). Implicit cognition, emotion, and meta-cognitive control.

Mind & Society, 11, 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-012-0101-5

Taylor, D. C. M., & Hamdy, H. (2013). Adult learning theories: Implications for learning and

teaching in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 83. Medical Teacher, 35(11), e1561–

e1572. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.828153

Tolmie, A., Muijs, D., & McAteer, E. (2011). Quantitative methods in educational and social

research using SPSS. McGraw Hill.

Tseng, W.-T., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic learning:

The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 78–102.

https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami046

Vacha-Haase, T., Kogan, L. R., & Thompson, B. (2000). Sample compositions and variabilities

in published studies versus those in test manuals: Validity of score reliability inductions.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(4), 509–522.

https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640021970682

Van Vuuren, A., McNaught, E., Priest, C., Paradisis, M., & Staub, E. (2019). Out with the old

gastric aspirates, in with the new algorithm: Cognitive learning theory in nursing

education. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 55(1), 52–53.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jpc.14409_138

116

Vandergrift, L., Goh, C., Mareschal, C., & Tafaghotari, M. H. (2006). The metacognitive

awareness listening questionnaire (MALQ): Development and validation. Language

Learning, 56, 431–462.

Vann, R. J., & Abraham, R. G. (1990). Strategies of unsuccessful language learners. TESOL

Quarterly, 24(2), 177–198. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586898

Vincent, A., & Ross, D. (1996). Learning styles: Strategies for the classroom. Southwestern

Business Administration Teaching Conference, Houston, 93–97.

Wakamoto, N. (2000). Language learning strategy and personality variables: Focusing on

extroversion and introversion. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language

Teaching, 38(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2000.38.1.71

Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies in language learning. Prentiss Hall.

Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in

Singapore. Language Learning, 50(2), 203–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-

8333.00117

Wheelis, A. (1973). How people change. Harper & Row.

Wierzbicka, A. (1997). Understanding cultures through their key words: English, Russian,

Polish, German, and Japanese. Oxford University Press.

Wu, M. (2016). Implications of Hegel’s theories of language on second language teaching.

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(3), 346–366.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1151081

Zarafshani, K., Cano, J., Sharafi, L., Rajabi, S., & Sulaimani, A. (2011). Using the Myers-Briggs

Type Indicator (MBTI®) in the Teaching of Entrepreneurial Skills at an Iranian

University. NACTA Journal, 55(4), 14–22.

117

8. Appendices

Appendix A – e-learning Platform Online Recruitment Letter Recruitment Letter for Online Language Students on Waterloo LEARN RESEARCH PARTICIPATION OPPORTUNITY Hello, my name is Elizabeth Milne, and I am an MA student in the Department of German and Slavic Studies. I am currently working on my thesis under the supervision of Dr. Emma Betz. I am studying to determine whether the distribution of personality types in a second language class differs from the personality type distribution in the general population. I am also looking at the learning strategies language students typically implement during their studies. This research will hopefully lead to curricula development and course construction that is more individualized and geared to leverage how students prefer to gather information. In other words, the hope is this will lead to an enhanced language learning experience for students. If you volunteer to be a participant in this study, you will be asked to complete two online surveys and one online assessment. In total you can expect it will take about 1 hour of your time. You are not expected to complete all three tasks at once. You choose the time(s) that best fits your schedule. You will receive $10 for your time regardless of whether you complete one, two or all three tasks. To receive the results of the online personality type and language learning assessment, you will sign up to a 30 minute online webinar. Results are only available if you have completed all three tasks. I would like to assure you that this study has been reviewed and received ethics clearance through a University of Waterloo Research Ethics Committee. However, the final decision about participation in this study is yours. The Information Letter is available for your review at www.typeandlanguage.ca. To participate, you can access the consent form and first survey here: Language Biography Survey. If you have any questions, please contact me, Elizabeth Milne, at ewmilne@uwaterloo.ca.

118

Appendix B – Information Letter

September 2017

Title of Project: Personality Type and Second Language Learning

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Elizabeth Milne, an MA student at the University of Waterloo, under the supervision of Professor Emma Betz, Department of German and Slavic Studies of the University of Waterloo, Canada. The objective of the research study is to explore the relationship between personality type, as defined by the Myers-Briggs Type IndicatorÒ “MBTIÒ” and the preferred learning strategies of undergraduate foreign language learners in a university setting using the Strategic Inventory for Language LearningÓ v. 5.1 (SILLÓ) questionnaire. The study is for an MA thesis.

If you choose to volunteer, you will be completing three online surveys/questionnaires.

1. Language Biography Survey. This is a 5-10 minute language biography survey. The questions focus on your experience speaking and studying a language other than English.

2. The Myers-Briggs Type IndicatorÒ Instrument. This questionnaire consists of 93 questions which ask you to choose between two possible answers. (E.g., When you go somewhere for the day, would you rather (a) plan what you will do and when, or (b) just go? Which word appeals to you more? (a) build or (b) invent?) The instrument requires you to log-into a third-party website, Psychometrics Canada, and takes approximately 20 minutes to complete. You will be given the opportunity to read Psychometrics' terms and conditions of use and provide consent prior to beginning the instrument. In order for this assessment to be valid, participants must answer all questions. There are no options to skip questions in this assessment. For purposes of report generation, you will be asked to specify a gender. Gender information is not collected but used when pronouns are included in generated reports. Identifying information is neither collected nor retained by the third party. At login you will be asked to use your UWaterloo email as a user name. This will allow the researcher to return your results and to correlate results to the other surveys. The MBTIÒ instrument sorts for preferences based on psychological traits as theorized by C.G. Jung.

Note: The University of Waterloo Counselling Services offers students the MBTI assessment for a cost of $10. Participants of this study do not have to pay any fee for the assessment. Participants receive the instrument at no cost, a $10 value. The Student Researcher is an MBTIÒ Practitioner and certified to administer this psychometric assessment.

3. The Strategic Inventory for Language LearningÓ v 5.1 (SILLÓ). This survey asks you to read 80 statements, and rate how much the statement reflects the way you learn a second language. (E.g., I imitate the way native speakers talk. You choose one of five options ranging "Almost always true of me" to "Almost never true of me.") The survey takes approximately 30 minutes to complete.

Upon completion of the three tasks, participants attend a 30 minute online feedback session with Elizabeth Milne at which time results of both the MBTIÒ Instrument and SILLÓ Profile will be explained and returned.

When information is transmitted over the internet privacy cannot be guaranteed. There is always a risk your responses may be intercepted by a third party (e.g., government agencies, hackers). University of Waterloo researchers will not collect or use internet protocol (IP) addresses or other information which could link your participation to your computer or electronic device without first informing you.

119

Participation in this study is voluntary. You may decline to answer any questions in the email survey or SILLÓ survey. There are no known or anticipated risks from participating in this study. You can withdraw your participation at any time by informing the researchers or by not submitting survey responses. In exchange for your participation, you will be given $10. The amount received is taxable. It is your responsibility to report this amount for income tax purposes

It is important for you to know that any information you provide will be coded and stored in such a way that potential identifiers are not made available to University of Waterloo professors, staff or students. Elizabeth Milne is the sole individual with access to all information. All collected data will be coded and summarized in such a way that no one could be identified from the summarized results. Student Investigator: Elizabeth Wendy Milne

Department of German and Slavic Studies University of Waterloo ewmilne@uwaterloo.ca

Research Supervisor: Dr. Emma Betz Department of German and Slavic Studies University of Waterloo embetz@uwaterloo.ca 519-888-4567, Ext. 33360

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether the distribution of personality types, as defined by the “MBTIÒ”, of foreign language or second language learners differs from the that of the general population. The study also seeks to investigate whether there is a relationship between personality type, and language learning strategies as defined by the SILL Ó. Determining statistical correlations between personality type and student language learning strategies will provide language departments information which may permit a greater degree of individualization in curricula creation, in turn, enhancing student engagement.

University of Waterloo undergraduate students enrolled in Croatian, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish are being offered the opportunity to participate in the study. As the study is dependent on volunteers, the final number of participants in the study is unknown at this time. You may withdraw from the study at any time without penalty by indicating this to the researcher or not submitting survey results. There are no known risks associated with participating in this study.

The collected data will be coded with participant numbers (not names) and will be kept in a locked area for five years after publication. After this time, all paper copies will be shredded and computer disks erased. Average data will be presented in all publications, and if an individual participant’s data are presented in a figure, names or any identifying information will not be included. We will keep identifying information for a minimum of two years and our study records for a minimum of five years. You can withdraw consent to participate and have your data destroyed by contacting us within this time period. Only those associated with this study will have access to these password protected records. It is not possible to withdraw your consent once papers and publications have been submitted to publishers. All records will be destroyed according to University of Waterloo policy.

This study has been reviewed and received ethics clearance through a University of Waterloo Research Ethics Committee (ORE #21734). If you have any comments or concerns resulting from your participation in this study, please contact the Chief Ethics Officer, Office of Research Ethics, at 1-519-888-4567, ext. 36005 or ore-ceo@uwaterloo.ca.

If you have any questions later or require additional information about the study, please feel free to contact either Elizabeth Milne (ewmilne@uwaterloo.ca) or the project supervisor, Professor Emma Betz at 519-884-4567 Ext. 33360.

120

Appendix C – Personality Type and Second Language Website Screenshots Home page of research website

Note: For legibility purposes, the home page of the Personality Type and Language Learning

Website has been split in two. The bottom portion of the webpage is available on the following

page.

121

Home page, bottom portion.

122

Questions page of the research website

123

Feedback page of research website

124

Contact page of research website

125

Appendix D – Consent Form

2016-09-30, 3:10 PMLanguage Biography Survey

Page 1 of 5https://questionnaire.simplesurvey.com/Engine/Default.aspx?surveyID=e5c45855-a9b7-4be2-a0d2-44c89a2d3f49&mode=33&lang=EN

Language Biography Survey

Thank you for your interest in participating in the Personality Type and Second LanguageLearning Research Project. The Information Letter contains details regarding the project,including its scope, remuneration, data collection and usage, your rights as a participant, andhow to contact the researchers and the University of Waterloo Office of Research Ethics. Youmay access the Information Letter and a copy of the Consent Form at any time at the PersonalityType and Second Language Learning website.

To enrol as a participant in this research project, your informed consent is required.

CONSENT FORM

PLEASE NOTE, that by filling in your name below, you are not waiving your rights or releasing theinvestigator(s) or involved institution(s) from their legal and professional responsibilities.

I agree to take part in a research study beting conducted by Elizabeth Milne, student researcherunder the supervision of Dr. Mathias Schulze, Department of German and Slavic Studies,University of Waterloo.

I have made this decision based on the information I have read in the Information Letter. All theprocedures, any risks and benefits have been explained to me. I have had the opportunity to askany questions and to receive any additional details I wanted about the study. If I have questionslater about the study, I can ask either: Elizabeth MilneStudent ResearcherDepartment of German and SlavicStudiesModern Languagesewmilne@uwaterloo.ca

Dr. Mathias SchulzeResearch SupervisorDepartment of German and SlavicStudies1-519-888-4567 Ext. 36627mschulze@uwaterloo.ca

I understand that I may withdraw from the study at any time without penalty by telling theresearcher. I understand I am entitled to receive $10 remuneration for my participation, evenshould I not complete all three tasks.

This project has been reviewed by and received ethics clearance through a University ofWaterloo Research Ethics Committee. I was informed that if I have any comments or concernsresulting from my participation in this study, I may contact the Cheif Ethics Officer, Office ofResearch Ethics, at 519-888-4567, ext. 36005 or ore-ceo@uwaterloo.ca.

126

2016-09-30, 3:10 PMLanguage Biography Survey

Page 2 of 5https://questionnaire.simplesurvey.com/Engine/Default.aspx?surveyID=e5c45855-a9b7-4be2-a0d2-44c89a2d3f49&mode=33&lang=EN

*First Name:

*Surname:

*UWaterloo email:

CONSENT:

I have read the Research Project Information Letter and Consent Form.

I understand that by typing my name and email address into the fields below, I am providing myinformed consent to be a participant in the Personality Type and Second Language LearningResearch Project.

127

Appendix E – Language Biography Survey

2016-09-30, 3:10 PMLanguage Biography Survey

Page 3 of 5https://questionnaire.simplesurvey.com/Engine/Default.aspx?surveyID=e5c45855-a9b7-4be2-a0d2-44c89a2d3f49&mode=33&lang=EN

Gender: Male

Female

Other

Prefer not to answer

Year of Birth:

Program of Study/Major/Minor

Term of Study (1A, 1B, etc.)

Current language classes at UWaterloo or other post secondary institution:

Past language classes at UWaterloo or other post secondary institution:

First language(s) spoken:

Thank you for agreeing to participate in the Type and Second Language Learning ResearchProject. This is the first of three tasks you will be asked to complete. The purpose of this surveyis to gather some basic biographical and language specific information. This survey should takebetween 5 - 10 minutes to complete.

Second language(s) plus experience for each (E.g., 1 year at high school, lived 6 months inMexico, speak with my grandparents occasionally, French immersion from Gr 1 to Gr 6,etc.)

What comes to mind when you think about foreign-language learning?

If you are studying multiple languages, please answer the following two questions based on onelanguage only. Include the name of the language in your answer. Thank you.

128

2016-09-30, 3:10 PMLanguage Biography Survey

Page 4 of 5https://questionnaire.simplesurvey.com/Engine/Default.aspx?surveyID=e5c45855-a9b7-4be2-a0d2-44c89a2d3f49&mode=33&lang=EN

What comes to mind when you think about the language you are studying?

What comes to mind when you think about the countries where this language is used? Thepeople? The culture?

129

2016-09-30, 3:10 PMLanguage Biography Survey

Page 5 of 5https://questionnaire.simplesurvey.com/Engine/Default.aspx?surveyID=e5c45855-a9b7-4be2-a0d2-44c89a2d3f49&mode=33&lang=EN

Thank you for completing the first survey. You may choose to complete the following two tasksin any order and at any time over the next two weeks. Links to both tasks are available at thePersonality Type and Language Learning website www.typeandlanguage.ca.

To access the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator(R) questionnaire, please goto elizabethmilne.careerid.com.

To access the SILL(c) survey, please go to SILL Questionnaire.

For more information on the project, please go to www.typeandlanguage.ca. If you have anyquestions, please contact Elizabeth Milne

Powered by SimpleSurvey

130

Appendix F – Psychometrics Canada (MBTI) Login Page

131

Appendix G – Sample of MBTI Questions

132

133

Appendix H – MBTI Assessment Completion Notification Email

134

Appendix I – Online SILL Questionnaire To begin the survey, please enter your UWaterloo email address in the field below. Are you currently studying more than one language? When answering the following questions, please focus on only one of the languages you are currently studying. Please identify that language in the space provided.

A1 On learning a new word, I create associations between new material and what I already know.

A2 On learning a new word, I put the new word in a sentence so I can remember it.

A3 On learning a new word, I place the new word in a group with other words that are similar in some way (for example, words related to clothing, feminine sounds, function, etc.)

A4 On learning a new word, I associate the sound of the new word with the sound of a familiar word.

A5 On learning a new word, I use rhyming to remember it.

A6 On learning a new word, I remember the word by making a clear mental image of it or by drawing a picture.

A7 On learning a new word, I visualize the spelling of the new word in my mind.

A8 On learning a new word, I use a combination of sounds and images to remember the new word.

A9 On learning a new word, I list all the other words I know that are related to the new word and draw lines to show relationships.

A10 On learning a new word, I remember where the new word is listed on the page, or where I first saw or heard it.

A11 On learning a new word, I use flashcards with the new word on one side and the definition or other information on the other.

A12 On learning a new word, I physically act out the new word. A13 When learning new material, I review often.

A14 When learning new material, I schedule my reviewing so that the review sessions are initially close together in time and gradually become more widely spread apart.

A15 When learning new material, I go back to refresh my memory of things I learned much earlier.

B1 I say or write new expressions repeatedly to practice them. B2 I imitate the way native speakers talk. B3 I read a story or dialogue several times until I understand it. B4 I revise what I write in the new language to improve my writing. B5 I practice the sounds or alphabet of the new language. B6 I use idioms or other routines in the new language. B7 I use familiar words in different combinations to make new sentences.

B8 I initiate conversations in the new language.

135

B9 I watch TV shows/movies, stream content or listen to the radio in the new language. B10 I try to think in the new language. B11 I attend and participate in out-of-class events where the new language is spoken. B12 I read for pleasure in the new language. B12 I write personal notes, messages, letters, or reports in the new language.

B14 I skim the reading passage first to get the main idea, then I go back and read it more carefully.

B15 I seek specific details in what I hear or read.

B16 I use reference materials such as glossaries or dictionaries to help me use the new language.

B17 I take notes in class in the new language. B18 I make summaries of new language material. B19 I apply general rules to new situations when using the language. B20 I find the meaning of a word by dividing the word into parts which I understand. B21 I look for similarities and contrasts between the new language and my own.

B22 I try to understand what I have heard or read without translating it word-for-word into my own language.

B23 I am cautious about transferring words or concepts directly from my language to the new language.

B24 I look for patterns in the new language.

B25 I develop my own understanding of how the language works, even if sometimes I have to revise my understanding based on new information.

C1 When I do not understand all the words I read or hear, I guess the general meaning by using any clue I can find, for example, clues from the context or situation.

C2 I read without looking up every unfamiliar word.

C3 In a conversation, I anticipate what the other person is going to say based on what has been said so far.

C4 If I am speaking and cannot think of the right expression, I use gestures or switch back to my own language momentarily.

C5 I ask the other person to tell me the right word if I cannot think of it in conversation.

C6 When I cannot think of the correct expression to say or write, I find a different way to express the idea; for example, I use a synonym or describe the idea.

C7 I make up new words if I do not know the right ones. C8 I direct the conversation to a topic for which I know the words.

D1 I preview the language lessons to get a general idea of what it is about, how it is organized, and how it relates to what I already know.

D2 When someone is speaking the new language, I try to concentrate on what the person is saying and put unrelated topics out of my head.

D3 I decide in advance to pay special attention to specific language aspects; for example, I focus on the way native speakers pronounce certain words.

136

D4 I try to find out all I can about how to be a better language learner by reading books or articles, or by talking with others about how to learn.

D5 I arrange my schedule to study and practice the new language consistently, not just when there is the pressure of a test.

D6 I arrange my physical environment to promote learning; for instance, I find a quite, comfortable place to review.

D7 I organize my language notebook (handwritten or electronic) to record important language information.

D8 I plan my goals for language learning, for instance, how proficient I want to become or how I might want to use the language in the long run.

D9 I plan what I am going to accomplish in language learning each day or each week.

D10 I prepare for an upcoming language task (such as giving a presentation in the new language) by considering the nature of the task, what I need to know, and my current language skills.

D11 I clearly identify the purpose of the language activity; for instance, in a listening task I might need to listen for the general idea or for specific fact.

D12 I take responsibility for finding opportunities to practice the new language.

D13 I actively look for people with whom I can speak the new language.

D14 I try to notice my language errors and find out the reasons for them.

D15 I learn from my mistakes in using the new language.

D16 I evaluate the general progress I have made in learning the language.

E1 I try to relax whenever I feel anxious about using the new language.

E2 I make encouraging statements to myself so that I will continue to try hard and do my best in language learning.

E3 I actively encourage myself to take wise risks in language learning, such as guessing meanings or trying to speak, even though I might make some mistakes.

E4 I give myself a tangible reward when I have done something well in my language learning.

E5 I pay attention to physical signs of stress that might affect language learning.

E6 I keep a private diary, journal or blog where I write my feelings about language learning.

E7 I talk to someone I trust about my attitudes and feelings concerning the language learning process.

137

Appendix J – Sample SILL Report

PROFILE OF RESULTS

STRATEGY INVENTORY FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING Version 5.1 © R. Oxford, 1989

This Profile summarizes your results on SILL and shows the kinds of strategies you use in learning a new language. Please note: There are no right or wrong answers and NO “best” average scores for each part. People learn languages differently.

STRATEGIES COVER: YOUR

AVERAGE

Remembering More Effectively 3.5 Grouping; making associations; placing new words into a context to remember them; using imagery, sounds, sound-and-image combinations, actions, etc. in order to remember new expressions; reviewing in a structured way; going back to review earlier material.

Using your Mental Processes 4.3 Repeating; practicing with sounds and writing systems; using formulas and patterns; recombining familiar items in new ways; practicing the language in a variety of authentic situations; involving the four skills (listening, reading, speaking and writing); skimming and scanning to get the idea quickly; using reference resources; taking notes; summarizing; reasoning deductively (applying general rules); analyzing expressions; analyzing contrastively via comparisons with another language; being cautious about word-for-word translating and direct transfers from another language; looking for language patterns; adjusting your understanding according to new information.

Compensating for Missing Knowledge 3.8 Using all possible clues to guess the meaning of what is heard or read in the new language; trying to understand the overall meaning and not necessarily every single word; finding ways to get the message across in speaking or writing despite limited knowledge of the new language; for instance, using gestures, switching to your own language momentarily, using a synonym or description, coining new words.

Organizing and Evaluating your Learning 3.6 Overviewing and linking with material you already know; deciding in general to pay attention; deciding to pay attention to specific details; finding out how language learning works; arranging to learn (schedule, environment, notebook); setting goals and objectives; identifying the purpose of a language task; planning for a language task; finding practice opportunities; noticing and learning from your errors; evaluation your progress.

Managing your Emotions 3.0 Lowering your anxiety; encouraging yourself through positive statements; taking risks wisely; rewarding yourself; noting physical stress; keeping a language learning diary; talking with someone about your feelings/attitudes

Learning with Others 4.2 Asking questions for clarification or verification; asking for correction; cooperating with peers; cooperating with proficient users of the new language; developing cultural awareness; becoming aware of others' thoughts and feelings

138

Key to understanding your averages:

Always or almost always used 4.5 – 5.0 High Generally used 3.5 – 4.4

Medium Sometimes Used 2.5 – 3.4

Generally not used 1.5 – 2.4 Low Never or almost never used 1.0 – 1.4

YOUR OVERALL AVERAGE 3.8

The overall average indicates how frequently you use language learning strategies in general. The averages for each part of the SILL show which groups of strategies you tend to use the most in learning a new language. You might find the averages for each part of the SILL are more useful than your overall average. Optimal use of language learning strategies depends on your age, personality, stage of language learning, purpose for learning the language, previous experience, and other factors. Nevertheless, there may be some language learning strategies you are not using which might be beneficial to you. You may request a copy of your individual survey results. You may also which to research information on language learning strategies.

00.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.5RememberingMoreEffectively

UsingyourMentalProcesses

CompensatingforMissingKnowledge

OrganizingandEvaluatingyourLearning

ManagingyourEmotions

LearningwithOthers

139

Appendix K – Sample MBTI Report and Additional Information Handouts

MBTI® ProfileCOLLEGE EDITION

This profile presents your results on the MBTI® assessment and reports which of sixteen different personality types best describes you, based on the responses you gave when taking the assessment. Your personality type is made up of your preferences in four separate categories that together describe how you typically go about noticing and thinking about things and interacting with people and the world. As shown below, each category is composed of two opposite preferences.

THE FOUR CATEGORIES OF PERSONALITY TYPE

Where you focus your attention

The way you take in information

The way you make decisions

How you deal with the world

THE PREFERENCES

Extraversion or

Sensing or

Thinking or

Judging or

Introversion

Intuition

Feeling

Perceiving

E I

S N

T F

J P

The four letters denoting your preferences—E or I, S or N, T or F, and J or P—combine to form a code for your personality type. Based on your responses, your personality type code is ENFP.

Intuition Taking in information by seeing patterns and the big picture, with a focus on future possibilities

Perceiving Taking a flexible, spontaneous approach to life, liking to keep options open

Extraversion Focusing attention on the outer world of people and things

Thinking Making decisions mostly on the basis of logic and objective analysis

Sensing Taking in information through the five senses, with a focus on the here and now

Judging Taking a planned and organized approach to life, liking things to be settled

Introversion Focusing attention on the inner world of ideas and impressions

Feeling Making decisions mostly on the basis of values and subjective, people-centered concerns

ENFPWhere you focus your attention

The way you take in information

The way you make decisions

How you deal with the world

E I

S N

J P

T F

JANE SAMPLE / "+#- / August 1, 2010

140

MBTI® ProfileCOLLEGE EDITION

JANE SAMPLE / "+#- / August 1, 2010

The MBTI assessment not only reports your preferences but also tells how clear you were in selecting each preference over its opposite. This is called the preference clarity index, or pci. The graph below depicts your pci results in each of the four categories.

PCI RESULTS: ENFP

Extraversion E

Sensing S

Thinking T

Judging J

I Introversion

N Intuition

F Feeling

P Perceiving

Very Clear Very ClearClearClear Moderate ModerateSlight Slight

30 30250 5 201510510152025

��

��

�

��

Some of the personality characteristics typically associated with ENFP are summarized below. Do they seem to fit? Many find that their MBTI results describe them quite well. Others find that changing a letter or two helps them arrive at a type that more accurately describes them. Your counselor can give you more insight into the type described and/or help you find a better match if needed.

· Curious, creative, and imaginative

· Energetic, enthusiastic, and spontaneous

· Unusually perceptive of people and of what’s going on in the world around them

· Like affirmation from others; support others and readily express appreciation

· Likely to value harmony and goodwill

· Apt to make decisions on the basis of personal values and empathy

· Often seen by others as friendly, perceptive, persuasive, and versatile

ENFP SNAPSHOT

ENFP

ISTJ

ESTP

ISTP

ESTJ

ISFJ

ESFP

ISFP

ESFJ

INFJ

INFP

ENFJ

INTJ

ENTP

INTP

ENTJ

Each type, or combination of preferences, tends to be characterized by its own collection of interests, values,and unique strengths. Whatever your preferences, you also behave in ways that may show opposite preferences.For more information on personality type and the impact it can have on important areas of your life, such aslearning, careers, and college life, visit www.cpp.com/ITTseries for a list of Introduction to Type® booklets.

MBTI ® Profile, College Edition Copyright 1998, 2004, 2010 by Peter B. Myers and Katharine D. Myers. All rights reserved. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, MBTI, Introduction to Type, and the MBTI logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of the MBTI Trust, Inc., in the United States and other countries. The CPP logo is a trademark or registered trademark of CPP, Inc., in the United States and other countries.

CPP, Inc. | 800-624-1765 | www.cpp.com

141

ENFP - Additional Information To help you on your way to better understand how an ENFP personality type tends to move through the world, I've provided you with a bit of extra information. These quotes come from just two sources. MBTI has a long history and is well known so information is readily available if you would like to learn more.

ENFPs are outgoing, dynamic, lively, and spontaneous They often have a good sense of humour and their enthusiasm and joy for life can be contagious. ENFPs have rich imaginations and active minds. Their thoughts are always wandering and their moods ever changing. They can be on one track in one minute and on another track in the next. (Baron 134)

ENFPs see life as a creative adventure full of exciting possibilities. Unusually perceptive about people and the world, they are insightful about the present and future. ENFPs experience a wide range of feelings and intense emotions. They need affirmation from others and readily give appreciation and support. (Kirby and Myers 30)

ENFPs enjoy telling stories, being centre stage, and having meaningful conversations. They often like attending workshops and classes and belonging to many groups. Quieter activities such as reading, writing, and creative projects are also pleasurable, but they don't like to do them alone for too long. They have a knack for making ordinary events exciting and fun, without much planning. ENFPs enjoy keeping their life active, spontaneous, and pursuing new experiences. (Baron 136)

ENFPs make up 8.1% of the general North American population, and are often referred to as the "imaginative motivators." A reminder: Everybody is unique. These preferences are applied in broad terms and you may find you resonate more with certain elements that are common of this personality type than others. That's normal and to be expected. Preferences are just that, preferences. As a complex, intelligent and adaptive human being, you can and will learn how to develop and use all facets of the personality traits in different situations as needed. The ENFP is best considered a default position and your starting point when engaging with the world.

WORKS CITED

Baron, Renee. What Type Am I? Discover Who You Really Are. New York: Penguin Books, 1998. Print.

Kirby, Linda K, and Myers, Katherine D., eds. Introduction to Myers-Briggs Type: A Guide to Understanding Your Results on the MBTI Assessment. Seventh. Sunnyvale CA: CPP, Inc., 2015. Print.

142

A very brief overview of the sixteen MBTI® Personality Types*

Sensing Judging Types (SJ)

ISTJ The Responsible Realist

Quiet, serious, succeed by being thorough and dependable. Practical, matter-of-fact, realistic, and responsible. Decide logically what should be done and work toward it steadily, regardless of distractions. Take pleasure in making everything orderly and organized — their work, their home, their life. Value traditions and loyalty.

ESTJ The Efficient Organizer

Practical, realistic, matter-of-fact. Decisive, quickly move to implement decisions. Organize projects and people to get things done, focus on getting results in the most efficient way possible. Take care of routine details. Have a clear set of logical standards, systematically follow them and want others to also. Forceful in implementing their plans.

ISFJ The Practical Helper

Quiet, friendly, responsible, and conscientious. Committed and steady in meeting their obligations. Thorough, painstaking, and accurate. Loyal, considerate, notice and remember specifics about people who are important to them, concerned with how others feel. Strive to create an orderly and harmonious environment at work and home.

ESFJ The Supportive Contributor

Warmhearted, conscientious, and cooperative. Want harmony in their environment, work with determination to establish it. Like to work with others to complete tasks accurately and on time. Loyal, follow through even in small matters. Notice what others need in their day-to-day lives and try to provide it. Want to be appreciated for who they are and what they contribute.

Sensing Perceiving Types (SP)

ESTP The Energetic Problem Solver

Flexible and tolerant, take a pragmatic approach focused on immediate results. Bored by theories and conceptual explanations; want to act energetically to solve the problem. Focus on the here and now, spontaneous, enjoy each moment that they can be active with others. Enjoy material comforts and style. Learn best through doing.

ISTP The Logical Pragmatist

Tolerant and flexible, quiet observers until a problem appears, then act quickly to find workable solutions. Analyze what makes things work and readily get through large amounts of data to isolate the core of practical problems. Interested in cause and effect, organize facts using logical principles, value efficiency.

ESFP The Enthusiastic Improviser

Outgoing, friendly, and accepting. Exuberant lovers of life, people, and material comforts. Enjoy working with others to make things happen. Bring common sense and a realistic approach to their work, and make work fun. Flexible and spontaneous, adapt readily to new people and environments. Learn best by trying a new skill with other people.

ISFP The Versatile Supporter

Quiet, friendly, sensitive, and kind. Enjoy the present moment, what’s going on around them. Like to have their own space and to work within their own time frame. Loyal and committed to their values and to people who are important to them. Dislike disagreements and conflicts, don’t force their opinions or values on others.

* Kirby, Linda K. and Myers, Katherine D., eds. Introduction to Myers-Briggs Type: A Guide to Understanding Your Results on the MBTI Assessment. Seventh. Sunnyvale CA: CPP, Inc. 2015

143

A very brief overview of the sixteen MBTI® Personality Types*

Intuiting Thinking Types (NT)

ENTJ The Decisive Strategist

Frank, decisive, assume leadership readily. Quickly see illogical and inefficient procedures and policies, develop and implement comprehensive systems to solve organizational problems. Enjoy long-term planning and goal setting. Usually well informed, well read, enjoy expanding their knowledge and passing it on to others Forceful in presenting their ideas.

INTJ The Conceptual Planner

Have original minds and great drive for implementing their ideas and achieving their goals. Quickly see patterns in external events and develop long-range explanatory perspectives. When committed, organize a job and carry it through. Skeptical and independent, have high standards of competence and performance — for themselves and others.

ENTP The Enterprising Explorer

Quick, ingenious, stimulating, alert, and outspoken. Resourceful in solving new and challenging problems. Adept at generating conceptual possibilities and then analyzing them strategically. Good at reading other people. Bored by routine, will seldom do the same thing the same way, apt to turn to one new interest after another.

INTP The Objective Analyst

Seek to develop logical explanations for everything that interests them. Theoretical and abstract, interested more in ideas than in social interaction. Quiet, contained, flexible, and adaptable. Have unusual ability to focus in depth to solve problems in their area of interest. Skeptical, sometimes critical, always analytical.

Intuiting Feeling Types (NF)

INFJ The Insightful Visionary

Seek meaning and connection in ideas, relationships, and material possessions.Want to understand what motivates people and are insightful about others. Conscientious and committed to their firm values. Develop a clear vision about how best to serve the common good. Organized and decisive in implementing their visions.

ENFJ The Compassionate Facilitator

Warm, empathetic, responsive, and responsible. Highly attuned to the emotions, needs, and motivations of others. Find potential in everyone, want to help others fulfill their potential. May act as catalysts for individual and group growth. Loyal, responsive to praise and criticism. Sociable, facilitate others in a group, and provide inspiring leadership.

INFP The Thoughtful Idealist

Idealistic, loyal to their values and to people who are important to them. Want to live a life that is congruent with their values. Curious, quick to see possibilities, can be catalysts for implementing ideas. Seek to understand people and to help them fulfill their potential. Adaptable, flexible, and accepting unless a value is threatened.

ENFP The Imaginative Motivator

Warmly enthusiastic and imaginative. See life as full of possibilities. Make connections between events and information very quickly, and confidently proceed based on the patterns they see. Want a lot of affirmation from others, and readily give appreciation and support. Spontaneous and flexible, often rely on their ability to improvise and their verbal fluency.

* Kirby, Linda K. and Myers, Katherine D., eds. Introduction to Myers-Briggs Type: A Guide to Understanding Your Results on the MBTI Assessment. Seventh. Sunnyvale CA: CPP, Inc. 2015

144

Appendix L – Feedback Session PowerPoint Presentation Slides

6/16/20

1

PERSONALITY TYPE AND

SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING

Research Project Feedback Session

W E B I N A R H O S T E D B YElizabeth Wendy Milne

Student InvestigatorDepartment of Germanic and Slavic Studies

University of Waterloo

June 6, 2018

1

TODAY’S AGENDA

• STRATEGIC INVENTORY FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING (SILL) Assessments

• MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR (MBTI) Overview

• MBTI Assessments

• Q&A

• password for e-transfer

2

STRATEGY INVENTORY FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING (SILL)

3

STRATEGY INVENTORY FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING (SILL)• Remembering more effectively – Memory related strategies

• Using your Mental Process – Cognitive strategies

• Organizing and Evaluating your Learning – Metacognitive strategies

• Managing your Emotions – Affective strategies

• Learning with Others – Social strategies

• Compensating for Missing Knowledge – Compensatory strategies

4

STRATEGY INVENTORY FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING (SILL)

PROFILE OF RESULTS

STRATEGY INVENTORY FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING Version 5.1 © R. Oxford, 1989

This Profile summarizes your results on SILL and shows the kinds of strategies you use in learning a new language. Please note: There are no right or wrong answers and NO “best” average scores for each part. People learn languages differently.

STRATEGIES COVER: YOUR

AVERAGE

Remembering More Effectively 3.5 Grouping; making associations; placing new words into a context to remember them; using imagery, sounds, sound-and-image combinations, actions, etc. in order to remember new expressions; reviewing in a structured way; going back to review earlier material.

Using your Mental Processes 4.3 Repeating; practicing with sounds and writing systems; using formulas and patterns; recombining familiar items in new ways; practicing the language in a variety of authentic situations; involving the four skills (listening, reading, speaking and writing); skimming and scanning to get the idea quickly; using reference resources; taking notes; summarizing; reasoning deductively (applying general rules); analyzing expressions; analyzing contrastively via comparisons with another language; being cautious about word-for-word translating and direct transfers from another language; looking for language patterns; adjusting your understanding according to new information.

Compensating for Missing Knowledge 3.8 Using all possible clues to guess the meaning of what is heard or read in the new language; trying to understand the overall meaning and not necessarily every single word; finding ways to get the message across in speaking or writing despite limited knowledge of the new language; for instance, using gestures, switching to your own language momentarily, using a synonym or description, coining new words.

Organizing and Evaluating your Learning 3.6 Overviewing and linking with material you already know; deciding in general to pay attention; deciding to pay attention to specific details; finding out how language learning works; arranging to learn (schedule, environment, notebook); setting goals and objectives; identifying the purpose of a language task; planning for a language task; finding practice opportunities; noticing and learning from your errors; evaluation your progress.

Managing your Emotions 3.0 Lowering your anxiety; encouraging yourself through positive statements; taking risks wisely; rewarding yourself; noting physical stress; keeping a language learning diary; talking with someone about your feelings/attitudes

Learning with Others 4.2 Asking questions for clarification or verification; asking for correction; cooperating with peers; cooperating with proficient users of the new language; developing cultural awareness; becoming aware of others' thoughts and feelings

5

STRATEGY INVENTORY FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING (SILL)

Key to understanding your averages:

Always or almost always used 4.5 – 5.0 High Generally used 3.5 – 4.4

Medium Sometimes Used 2.5 – 3.4

Generally not used 1.5 – 2.4 Low Never or almost never used 1.0 – 1.4

YOUR OVERALL AVERAGE 3.8

The overall average indicates how frequently you use language learning strategies in general. The averages for each part of the SILL show which groups of strategies you tend to use the most in learning a new language. You might find the averages for each part of the SILL are more useful than your overall average. Optimal use of language learning strategies depends on your age, personality, stage of language learning, purpose for learning the language, previous experience, and other factors. Nevertheless, there may be some language learning strategies you are not using which might be beneficial to you. You may request a copy of your individual survey results. You may also which to research information on language learning strategies.

00.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.5RememberingMoreEffectively

UsingyourMentalProcesses

CompensatingforMissingKnowledge

OrganizingandEvaluatingyourLearning

ManagingyourEmotions

LearningwithOthers

6

145

6/16/20

2

STRATEGY INVENTORY FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING (SILL)

Key to understanding your averages:

Always or almost always used 4.5 – 5.0 High Generally used 3.5 – 4.4

Medium Sometimes Used 2.5 – 3.4

Generally not used 1.5 – 2.4 Low Never or almost never used 1.0 – 1.4

YOUR OVERALL AVERAGE 3.8

The overall average indicates how frequently you use language learning strategies in general. The averages for each part of the SILL show which groups of strategies you tend to use the most in learning a new language. You might find the averages for each part of the SILL are more useful than your overall average. Optimal use of language learning strategies depends on your age, personality, stage of language learning, purpose for learning the language, previous experience, and other factors. Nevertheless, there may be some language learning strategies you are not using which might be beneficial to you. You may request a copy of your individual survey results. You may also which to research information on language learning strategies.

00.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.5RememberingMoreEffectively

UsingyourMentalProcesses

CompensatingforMissingKnowledge

OrganizingandEvaluatingyourLearning

ManagingyourEmotions

LearningwithOthers

7

STRATEGY INVENTORY FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING (SILL)

Key to understanding your averages:

Always or almost always used 4.5 – 5.0 High Generally used 3.5 – 4.4

Medium Sometimes Used 2.5 – 3.4

Generally not used 1.5 – 2.4 Low Never or almost never used 1.0 – 1.4

YOUR OVERALL AVERAGE 3.8

The overall average indicates how frequently you use language learning strategies in general. The averages for each part of the SILL show which groups of strategies you tend to use the most in learning a new language. You might find the averages for each part of the SILL are more useful than your overall average. Optimal use of language learning strategies depends on your age, personality, stage of language learning, purpose for learning the language, previous experience, and other factors. Nevertheless, there may be some language learning strategies you are not using which might be beneficial to you. You may request a copy of your individual survey results. You may also which to research information on language learning strategies.

00.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.5RememberingMoreEffectively

UsingyourMentalProcesses

CompensatingforMissingKnowledge

OrganizingandEvaluatingyourLearning

ManagingyourEmotions

LearningwithOthers

8

MBTI• Based on a theory of personality type

developed by Carl Jung (1875-1961) a Swiss Psychiatrist

• Refined over twenty years of study by Katharine C. Briggs (1875-1968)

• Isabel Briggs Myers (1897-1980) developed questions that became the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Instrument in 1943

®

9

MBTIJUNG’S PERSONALITY THEORY:

• Every person carries out two kinds of mental processes:• We take in information

• Then we make decisions about the information

• Everyone has preferred ways of using these mental processes

• Each person has a preference for the outer world or the inner world

• Each person has a preferred way of orienting themselves to the outside world.

®

10

MBTI® THEORYFour pairs of opposites—like our right and left hands. We all use both sides of each pair, but one is our natural preference.

The MBTI® instrument is designed to indicate those inborn preferences.

The MBTI instrument is not designed to measure skills or effects of environment.

11

MBTI ®The MBTI® instrument indicates preferences on four pairs of opposites, called dichotomies:

Extraversion E or I Introversion

Sensing S or N Intuition

Thinking T or F Feeling

Judging J or P Perceiving

12

146

6/16/20

3

EXTRAVERSION (E) OR INTROVERSION (I)

Where we focus our attention and get energy

Source: Introduction to Myers-Briggs® Type (7th ed.), I. B. Myers, p. 5.

13

E – I DIFFERENCES

People who prefer Extraversion:Direct their energy and attention outward Focus on the outer world of people and activity

People who prefer Introversion:Direct their energy and attention inward Focus on their inner world of ideas and experiences

We all use both preferences, but usuallynot with equal comfort.

Source: Introduction to Myers-Briggs® Type (7th ed.), I. B. Myers, p. 5.

14

WHERE PEOPLE FOCUS THEIR ATTENTIONPeople who prefer Extraversion (E)§ Are energized by interacting with others

§ Are sociable and expressive

§ Prefer to communicate face-to-face

§ Work out ideas by talking them through

§ Have broad interests in many things

§ Learn best through doing or discussing

§ Readily take initiative in work and relationships

People who prefer Introversion (I)

§ Are energized by opportunity to reflect

§ Are private and contained

§ Prefer to communicate by writing

§ Work out ideas by thinking them through§ Focus in depth on their interests

§ Learn best by reflection, mental “practice”§ Take initiative when the situation or issue

is very important to them

Source: Introduction to Myers-Briggs® Type (7th ed.), I. B. Myers, p. 5.

15

KEY WORDS ASSOCIATED WITH E – I

ExtraversionActionOutwardPeopleInteractionMany

ExpressiveDo-Think-Do

IntroversionReflectionInwardPrivacy

ConcentrationFewQuiet

Think-Do-Think

16

SENSING (S) OR INTUITION (N)

The way we take in information and the kind of information we like and trust

Source: Introduction to Myers-Briggs® Type (7th ed.), I. B. Myers, p. 5.

17

S – N DIFFERENCES

People who prefer Sensing:Focus on present realities, verifiable facts, and experience

People who prefer Intuition:Focus on future possibilities, the big picture, and insights

We all use both ways of perceiving, but we typically prefer and trust one of them more.

Source: Introduction to Myers-Briggs® Type (7th ed.), I. B. Myers, p. 5.

18

147

6/16/20

4

HOW PEOPLE TAKE IN INFORMATIONPeople who prefer Sensing (S)§ Focus on what is real and actual

§ Observe and remember specifics

§ Are factual, concrete, and sequential

§ Build carefully and thoroughly toward conclusions

§ Understand ideas and theories through practical applications

§ Are specific and literal

§ Trust experience

People who prefer Intuition (N)§ Focus on patterns and meanings

§ Remember specifics when they relate to a pattern

§ Are abstract and imaginative

§ Move quickly to conclusions, follow hunches

§ Generate ideas and theories; application is secondary

§ Use metaphors and analogies

§ Trust insight

Source: Introduction to Myers-Briggs® Type (7th ed.), I. B. Myers, p. 5.

19

KEY WORDS ASSOCIATED WITH S – N

SensingFacts

RealisticSpecificPresentKeep

PracticalWhat is

IntuitionIdeas

ImaginativeGeneralFutureChange

TheoreticalWhat could be

20

THINKING (T) OR FEELING (F)

The way we make decisionsSource: Introduction to Myers-Briggs® Type (7th ed.), I. B. Myers, p. 6.

21

T – F DIFFERENCES

People who prefer Thinking:Make their decisions based on impersonal, objective logic

People who prefer Feeling:Make their decisions based on personal priorities and relationships

Both processes are rational and we use both,but usually not with equal ease.

Source: Introduction to Myers-Briggs® Type (7th ed.), I. B. Myers, p. 6.

22

HOW PEOPLE MAKE DECISIONSPeople who prefer Thinking (T)§ Step back to get an objective view

§ Analyze

§ Use cause-and-effect reasoning

§ Solve problems with logic

§ Strive for an objective standard of truth

§ Are “reasonable”

§ Can be “tough-minded”

§ Are fair—want everyone to be treated equally

People who prefer Feeling (F)§ Step in to identify with those involved

§ Empathize

§ Are guided by personal and group values

§ Assess impacts of decisions on people

§ Strive for harmony and positive interactions

§ Are compassionate

§ May appear “tenderhearted”

§ Are fair—want everyone to be treated as an individual

Source: Introduction to Myers-Briggs® Type (7th ed.), I. B. Myers, p. 6.

23

KEY WORDS ASSOCIATED WITH T – F

ThinkingDetached

ThingsObjectiveCritiqueAnalyze

Firm but fair

FeelingPersonalPeople

SubjectivePraise

UnderstandMerciful

24

148

6/16/20

5

JUDGING (J) OR PERCEIVING (P)

Our attitude toward the external world and how we orient ourselves to it

Source: Introduction to Myers-Briggs® Type (7th ed.),, I. B. Myers, p. 6.

25

J – P DIFFERENCESPeople who prefer Judging:

Want the external world to be organized and orderly Look at the world and see decisions that need to be made

People who prefer Perceiving:Seek to experience the world, not organize it Look at the world and see options that need to be explored

We all use both attitudes, but usually not with equal comfort.

Source: Introduction to Myers-Briggs® Type (7th ed.),, I. B. Myers, p. 6.

26

J – P ILLUSTRATION

Source: Introduction to Type® and Change, N. J. Barger & L. K. Kirby, p. 5.

27

HOW PEOPLE APPROACH LIFEPeople who prefer Judging (J)§ Organized

§ Systematic

§ Methodical§ Make short- and long-term plans, and

then follow them§ Like to have things

decided

§ Resist reopening decisions§ Try to avoid last-minute stresses

People who prefer Perceiving (P)§ Adaptable and curious

§ Casual

§ Open-ended§ Adjust flexibly to new information and

changes§ Like to explore options

§ Resist cutting off options, making decisions too soon

§ Feel energized by last-minute pressures

Source: Introduction to Myers-Briggs® Type (7th ed.),, I. B. Myers, p. 6.

28

KEY WORDS ASSOCIATED WITHJ – P

JudgingOrganizedDecisionControlNowClosureDeliberatePlan

PerceivingFlexibleInformationExperienceLaterOptionsSpontaneousWait

29

PERSONALITY TYPE

When combined, yourpreferences indicate

your personality type.

30

149

6/16/20

6

16 PERSONALITY TYPES

31

MEANING OF RESULTS

The MBTI®

instrument does not measure how much or how well you do something

It is intended to indicate your innate preferences

The number or category reported with the letter = the clarity with which you indicated your preference

32

QUESTIONS

33

E-TRANSFER PASSWORD

Hamilton

34

PERSONALITY TYPE AND

SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING

Research Project Feedback Session

Elizabeth Milne – June 6, 2018

Thank you!

35

150

Appendix M – Mann-Whitney U Hypothesis Test Summaries

Dependent Variables – Memory Strategy Questions 1 – 15 Independent Variable – SN Scale

151

Dependent Variables – Memory Strategy Questions 1 – 15 Independent Variable – TF Scale

152

Dependent Variables – Cognitive Strategy Questions 1 – 25 Independent Variable – SN Scale

153

154

Dependent Variables – Cognitive Strategy Questions 1 – 25 Independent Variable – TF Scale

155

156

Dependent Variables – Compensation Strategy Questions 1 – 8

Independent Variable – SN Scale & TF Scale

157

Dependent Variables – Metacognative Strategy Questions 1 – 16

Independent Variable – SN Scale

158

Dependent Variables – Metacognative Strategy Questions 1 – 16 Independent Variable – TF Scale